Dumb question: what does TEL stand for?
Quote from: Razvan on 03/05/2015 01:41 amQuote from: guckyfan on 03/05/2015 01:36 amQuote from: Razvan on 03/05/2015 01:32 amYes. I read somewhere, a SpaceX official statement, that the pad abort test is going to use a second stage mock-up. Are you sure this was not about the in flight abort?No. no. For the inflight abort you have to use all the gear, stage one, stge two, everything...For the pad abort test you do not need to use stage one, but stage two mock up.No, no, no. All this is certainly not NEEDED, it may be the easiest way for SpaceX to do it. But if there the second stage could be a mockup, with no engine. It is just not needed.
Quote from: guckyfan on 03/05/2015 01:36 amQuote from: Razvan on 03/05/2015 01:32 amYes. I read somewhere, a SpaceX official statement, that the pad abort test is going to use a second stage mock-up. Are you sure this was not about the in flight abort?No. no. For the inflight abort you have to use all the gear, stage one, stge two, everything...For the pad abort test you do not need to use stage one, but stage two mock up.
Quote from: Razvan on 03/05/2015 01:32 amYes. I read somewhere, a SpaceX official statement, that the pad abort test is going to use a second stage mock-up. Are you sure this was not about the in flight abort?
Yes. I read somewhere, a SpaceX official statement, that the pad abort test is going to use a second stage mock-up.
No NET confirmed yet. No silly polls required (people are flapping their mouths on here so much they've forgot what this test is about and involves). Let's focus guys.
A successful test a few months late has no effect on CCtCap schedule.
Quote from: butters on 03/05/2015 01:20 amQuote from: JBF on 03/05/2015 12:51 amIf they are actually going to use the LC-40 pad they need to be at the right height to guarantee that it won't hit the lightning suppressor wires.Because it's impossible to take the observed flight trajectory, translate it to the proper launch position, and demonstrate that the path does not intersect the lightning tower guide wires? This is not rocket science.Because in an abort situation the chance that all the motors ignite at exactly the same instant cannot be guaranteed. There will be some initial wobble. SpaceX will have calculated the worst case of course. However what might be acceptable with the Dragon at top of the stack may not be acceptable at ground level. The easiest way to avoid having to worry about any non-real conditions is to do the abort exactly as if it was attached to a real falcon 9.
Quote from: JBF on 03/05/2015 12:51 amIf they are actually going to use the LC-40 pad they need to be at the right height to guarantee that it won't hit the lightning suppressor wires.Because it's impossible to take the observed flight trajectory, translate it to the proper launch position, and demonstrate that the path does not intersect the lightning tower guide wires? This is not rocket science.
If they are actually going to use the LC-40 pad they need to be at the right height to guarantee that it won't hit the lightning suppressor wires.
If they're being secretive, perhaps watch for FAA TFR's (temp flight restrictions) around LC-40. That might indicate something is going to go up into the sky, say, a rocketing capsule.... and approximately when!Splinter
Quote from: swervin on 03/10/2015 09:04 amIf they're being secretive, perhaps watch for FAA TFR's (temp flight restrictions) around LC-40. That might indicate something is going to go up into the sky, say, a rocketing capsule.... and approximately when!SplinterGood call, swervin. Here it is, a TFR for Friday 13 th at the Cape:http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.htmlhttp://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_5_1744.htmlRestricted area looks consistent with expected Dragon abort trajectory.
That's just the NET as chris has said. Not date set yet.
Tweet from James Dean "SpaceX says targeting late March/early April Dragon pad abort test from Cape."https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/575350070733848576
