-
#60
by
WHAP
on 19 Sep, 2013 12:15
-
That makes sense; remember they had to let the LOX boil off after the last hot fire.
?? There would be workers under the vehicle, but the rest are still waiting for lox to boil off after taking the vehicle to horizontal?
-
#61
by
Kabloona
on 19 Sep, 2013 13:58
-
From looking at various photos it aplears that there are two different trusses that get bolted onto the top of the TEL. One is for transport, and has the two "bunks" that support the fairing. The other is for launch, and holds the AC ducts and umbilicals for the fairing.
But it looks like both trusses can't be attached to the TEL simultaneously. One has to be removed before the other can be attached. In the photo of the rocket horizontal, the truss with the fairing "bunks" is sitting just ahead of the truss that holds the AC ducts.
If they were/are rolling back to the HIF, presumably they'd detach the truss with the AC ducts and attach the one with the fairing bunks.
Doesn't that sound a bit strange from an operational point of view ?
If the fairing is attached, it needs to be supported during transport. Or at least there needs to be some support near the top end of the launcher. How much weight do you want the fairing to support while in the horizontal position ?
And of course, while the payload is attached, those umbilicals are absolutely required. You risk the spacecraft health if it doesn't get power and cooling, right ?
How can you have 2 separate truss structures when both functions are required ??
Both functions are required, but not at the same time. One truss is for transport, and one is for launch. These presumably get swapped out just before the vehicle is erected at the pad.
Here's a photo sequence showing clearly the TEL with the different trusses on its front (top) end, and one with no truss at all on top:
TEL with transport cradle truss:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31429.0;attach=542202TEL with fairing umbilical truss:
http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/spacecoaster1/media/LVD_zpsdb8891fa.jpg.html?&_suid=1379597697648027071598544716835TEL with both trusses side by side:
http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/spacecoaster1/media/LVJ_zps2e4c5741.jpg.html?&_suid=137959961163005051272702403367TEL with neither truss attached:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32685.0;attach=543627(Note the transport truss sitting on the pad in background)
-
#62
by
Jim
on 19 Sep, 2013 14:05
-
That makes sense; remember they had to let the LOX boil off after the last hot fire.
?? There would be workers under the vehicle, but the rest are still waiting for lox to boil off after taking the vehicle to horizontal?
The LOX would have to boil off before going horizontal.
-
#63
by
Lurker Steve
on 19 Sep, 2013 14:16
-
From looking at various photos it aplears that there are two different trusses that get bolted onto the top of the TEL. One is for transport, and has the two "bunks" that support the fairing. The other is for launch, and holds the AC ducts and umbilicals for the fairing.
But it looks like both trusses can't be attached to the TEL simultaneously. One has to be removed before the other can be attached. In the photo of the rocket horizontal, the truss with the fairing "bunks" is sitting just ahead of the truss that holds the AC ducts.
If they were/are rolling back to the HIF, presumably they'd detach the truss with the AC ducts and attach the one with the fairing bunks.
Doesn't that sound a bit strange from an operational point of view ?
If the fairing is attached, it needs to be supported during transport. Or at least there needs to be some support near the top end of the launcher. How much weight do you want the fairing to support while in the horizontal position ?
And of course, while the payload is attached, those umbilicals are absolutely required. You risk the spacecraft health if it doesn't get power and cooling, right ?
How can you have 2 separate truss structures when both functions are required ??
Both functions are required, but not at the same time. One truss is for transport, and one is for launch. These presumably get swapped out just before the vehicle is erected at the pad.
Here's a photo sequence showing clearly the TEL with the different trusses on its front (top) end, and one with no truss at all on top:
TEL with transport cradle truss:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31429.0;attach=542202
TEL with fairing umbilical truss:
http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/spacecoaster1/media/LVD_zpsdb8891fa.jpg.html?&_suid=1379597697648027071598544716835
TEL with both trusses side by side:
http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/spacecoaster1/media/LVJ_zps2e4c5741.jpg.html?&_suid=137959961163005051272702403367
TEL with neither truss attached:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32685.0;attach=543627
(Note the transport truss sitting on the pad in background)
So, once you go vertical, you never want to go horizontal (and back to the HIF) again or else you need to bring in the crane ?
-
#64
by
Kabloona
on 19 Sep, 2013 14:25
-
So, once you go vertical, you never want to go horizontal (and back to the HIF) again or else you need to bring in the crane ?
I don't know what the crane is for, but presumably once the TEL is back to horizontal, the truss with the fairing cradles gets re-attached to the TEL before it rolls off the pad (of course, only if it still has an F9 with payload fairing on it).
Incidentally, here's another pic showing the TEL with neither the transport cradle truss nor the umbilical truss attached to the top:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31429.0;attach=541472
-
#65
by
WHAP
on 19 Sep, 2013 16:59
-
That makes sense; remember they had to let the LOX boil off after the last hot fire.
?? There would be workers under the vehicle, but the rest are still waiting for lox to boil off after taking the vehicle to horizontal?
The LOX would have to boil off before going horizontal.
Figured that.
Just trying to understand what "makes sense" to JBF - if he was talking about the lack of people around the vehicle or something else.
-
#66
by
JBF
on 19 Sep, 2013 17:33
-
Figured that. Just trying to understand what "makes sense" to JBF - if he was talking about the lack of people around the vehicle or something else.
Sorry I had to delete my post and response I was getting to close to some L2 information.
-
#67
by
wbarnes
on 19 Sep, 2013 20:17
-
-
#68
by
Kabloona
on 19 Sep, 2013 20:46
-
-
#69
by
kirghizstan
on 20 Sep, 2013 01:38
-
-
#70
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Sep, 2013 02:19
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32685.msg1099107#msg1099107
good news, 2nd hot fire went well, now just waiting on the launch window to open
That looks impressive. The previous Falcon 9 flights had a lot more vapor clouds. Is this because of the higher humidity at the Cape vs. Vandenburg?
...this test looked solid to me. I think it is the angle, but it just looks more...professional? than their previous tests. I think it's mostly the combination of a smoother profile for the launch vehicle (beautiful fairing!), more white paint, a sturdier strongback, and less water vapor.
-
#71
by
Garrett
on 20 Sep, 2013 06:42
-
...this test looked solid to me. I think it is the angle, but it just looks more...professional? than their previous tests.
Exactly what I thought too, although looking back on the COTS 2 hot-fire video it doesn't seem that different.
The sound of the rockets seemed of better quality, maybe thanks to a microphone better adapted to high intensity rocket noise?
-
#72
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 20 Sep, 2013 13:46
-
Well! It seems that there is nothing left but to get this bird in the air and see if it works or just falls apart!
-
#73
by
ugordan
on 20 Sep, 2013 15:59
-
The previous Falcon 9 flights had a lot more vapor clouds. Is this because of the higher humidity at the Cape vs. Vandenburg?
What do you mean by more water vapor? Check out for example the CRS-2 static fire.
One noticeable thing is that the shutdown on M1D is much more abrupt than M1C, the latter chugging and flaming for quite a while.
-
#74
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Sep, 2013 17:13
-
The previous Falcon 9 flights had a lot more vapor clouds. Is this because of the higher humidity at the Cape vs. Vandenburg?
What do you mean by more water vapor? Check out for example the CRS-2 static fire.
One noticeable thing is that the shutdown on M1D is much more abrupt than M1C, the latter chugging and flaming for quite a while.
Look at the white clouds coming from the side of the vehicle and from the LOx vent ports. Looks far more dramatic on the v1.0 tests than with v1.1.
-
#75
by
ugordan
on 20 Sep, 2013 18:05
-
I don't see how it's more dramatic on v1.0 than here. It's all down to wind and temperature/humidity on any given day, anyway. One event is not enough data points to conclude VAFB is appreciably different than CCAFS.
Also, for most of the video the GOX vents were closed since the vehicle was pressurized for flight.
-
#76
by
Helodriver
on 26 Sep, 2013 11:54
-
The pad is currently empty, with the rocket in the hangar.
-
#77
by
dcporter
on 26 Sep, 2013 13:54
-
It's all down to wind and temperature/humidity on any given day. Also, for most of the video the GOX vents were closed since the vehicle was pressurized for flight.
Edited this down to just the information for you.
What are you saying with this?
Thought you were being a little bit spiky in your response, so I edited out the spikiness. =)
In retrospect though I was substantially more spiky in mine than you were in yours. Undeserved & removed.
-
#78
by
Zaran
on 27 Sep, 2013 13:47
-
As I didn't see it posted here yet, the mission patch for Falcon 9 Flight 6.
-
#79
by
kirghizstan
on 27 Sep, 2013 13:52
-
That Patch makes it seem like the fairing is much larger than it needs to be. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention but is this true? Has SpaceX simply decided to offer 1 fairing size for simplicity sake?
Just trying to understand what "makes sense" to JBF - if he was talking about the lack of people around the vehicle or something else.