Avast!
In the post briefing Gerst said they, with their P3, wanted to study F9's hypersonic and transonic retro-propulsion methods because it was applicable to Mars EDL. (I am sure China and Russia are also intrigued.) I am confused on the legalities of it. It did not come across to me as a joint P3 mission but a sole NASA initiative. Why would NASA want an independent data collection mission outside of SpaceX? Who has the rights to the IP and is not SpaceX and NASA/JPL working closely with each other? Who is helping whom and paying for it?
The seafaring hail, of course. Ye Scurvy Dogs.
Intrigued by the geyser, I went back and watched the ignition of all the other Falcons, including the 1.0s that have flown from this pad, paying attention not to the geyser or lack thereof, but the initial blast of vapor coming out of the flame duct and the initiation of the water spray deluge before liftoff.The water deluge system appears unchanged in volume or time of initiation compared to other launches, so barring a massive increase in flow or new piping under the engine balls, this does not appear to be the cause. The legs, may have had some channeling effect of directing water up the vehicle but it appears negligible as both the legs themselves and the rocket body skin between them are equally dirty and video shows nearly the whole of the vehicle enveloped in spray.The most obvious difference was in the appearance of the vapor initially exiting the flame trench. On most launches a small amount of gray unvaporized water is splashed out with the initial blast, followed very quickly with a billowing cloud of white steam as the water deluge is vaporized and ejected as the vehicle rises off the launch stand. On this launch the emission was predominantly dark water splashing thickly for nearly 4 times longer (almost three full seconds) before the white steam emerged out the flame trench, accompanied by the now famous upward geyser. This could indicate one of two things. A large excess amount of water pooled in the trench, on the order of a few feet deep due to rainfall or excess deluge system pumping, or a slower than normal buildup to full thrust during startup, with the lower initial thrust unable to fully expel the standing water but instead flashing it to vapor under the rocket where it found the fastest pressure release, upward through the exhaust hole in the launch stand. Of these two possibilities, I find the excess water most plausible. Its not impossible that such a jet of hot water could provide enough force to damage the vehicle, dislodge umbilicals, or even quench an engine if left unchecked. My thought is the water level in the trench will be a more closely monitored parameter on future launch attempts.
This is the party thread after all...and it is a good Friday;Fer a good tyme -translate ye the following with an amorous pirate brogue, arrgh or ye be yeller an' gutless, aye:
Intrigued by t' geyser, I went aft and watched t' ignition o' all t' other Falcons, includin' t' 1.0s that have flown from this pad, payin' attention not t' t' geyser or lack tharof, but t' initial blast o' vapor comin' out o' t' flame duct and t' initiation o' t' water spray deluge before liftoff.T' water deluge system appears unchanged in volume or time o' initiation compared t' other launches, so barrin' a massive increase in flow or new pipin' under t' engine balls, this does not appear t' be t' cause.T' legs, may have had some channelin' effect o' directin' water up t' vehicle but it appears negligible as both t' legs themselves and t' rocket body skin between them be equally dirty and video shows nearly t' whole o' t' vehicle enveloped in spray.T' most obvious difference was in t' appearance o' t' vapor initially exitin' t' flame trench. On most launches a small amount o' gray unvaporized water be splashed out with t' initial blast, followed very smartly with a billowin' cloud o' white steam as t' water deluge be vaporized and ejected as t' vehicle rises off t' launch stand. On this launch t' emission was predominantly dark water splashin' thickly for nearly 4 times longer (almost three full seconds) before t' white steam emerged out t' flame trench, accompanied by t' now famous upward geyser.This could indicate one o' two thin's. A large excess amount o' water pooled in t' trench, on t' order o' a few feet deep due t' rainfall or excess deluge system pumpin', or a slower than normal buildup t' full thrust durin' startup, with t' lower initial thrust unable t' fully expel t' standin' water but instead flashin' it t' vapor under t' rocket where it found t' smartlyest presaye release, upward through t' exhaust hole in t' launch stand. Of these two possibilities, I find t' excess water most plausible. Its not impossible that such a jet o' hot water could provide enough force t' damage t' vehicle, dislodge umbilicals, or even quench an engine if port unchecked. Me thought be t' water level in t' trench will be a more closely monitored parameter on future launch attempts.
Quote from: GalacticIntruder on 04/19/2014 05:48 amIn the post briefing Gerst said they, with their P3, wanted to study F9's hypersonic and transonic retro-propulsion methods because it was applicable to Mars EDL. (I am sure China and Russia are also intrigued.) I am confused on the legalities of it. It did not come across to me as a joint P3 mission but a sole NASA initiative. Why would NASA want an independent data collection mission outside of SpaceX? Who has the rights to the IP and is not SpaceX and NASA/JPL working closely with each other? Who is helping whom and paying for it?I assume that would have been filming, so anyone free to do that. Presume they would have passed the data to SpaceX, too. Cheers, Martin
Quote from: sanman on 04/19/2014 01:46 amBesides, what kind of resale value are you going to get on a used first stage that looks all dirty? That must be why they gave it a dunk in the ocean -- to clean off the dirt and up the resale value. :-)
Besides, what kind of resale value are you going to get on a used first stage that looks all dirty?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/19/2014 01:59 amQuote from: sanman on 04/19/2014 01:46 amBesides, what kind of resale value are you going to get on a used first stage that looks all dirty? That must be why they gave it a dunk in the ocean -- to clean off the dirt and up the resale value. :-)And hey, maybe a sprinkling of this "holy water" for luck during launch is what made the controlled splashdown possible.
In the post briefing Gerst said they, with their P3, wanted to study F9's hypersonic to transonic retro-propulsion methods because it was applicable to Mars EDL. (I am sure China and Russia are also intrigued.) I am confused on the legalities of it. It did not come across to me as a joint P3 mission but a sole NASA initiative. Why would NASA want an independent data collection mission outside of SpaceX? Who has the rights to the IP and is not SpaceX and NASA/JPL working closely with each other? Who is helping whom and paying for it?
