-
#320
by
NX-0
on 22 Mar, 2017 10:51
-
RE: The patch in the update thread...
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
-
#321
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 22 Mar, 2017 11:36
-
RE: The patch in the update thread...
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Yes.
-
#322
by
StarTracker
on 22 Mar, 2017 12:40
-
RE: The patch in the update thread...
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Good eye. I was looking for (expecting?) something move obvious. Say, for example, a giant "2" emblazoned on the 1st stage, or a code in the star field alluding to the re-use. The gray tinge is more subtle than I expected.
-
#323
by
SLC
on 22 Mar, 2017 14:48
-
RE: The patch in the update thread...
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Good eye. I was looking for (expecting?) something move obvious. Say, for example, a giant "2" emblazoned on the 1st stage, or a code in the star field alluding to the re-use. The gray tinge is more subtle than I expected.
... and, to my eyes, the legs look white, like S2 and fairing. Does that mean they're new? Or am I pushing this one stage too far?
-
#324
by
RotoSequence
on 22 Mar, 2017 15:04
-
RE: The patch in the update thread...
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Good eye. I was looking for (expecting?) something move obvious. Say, for example, a giant "2" emblazoned on the 1st stage, or a code in the star field alluding to the re-use. The gray tinge is more subtle than I expected.
... and, to my eyes, the legs look white, like S2 and fairing. Does that mean they're new? Or am I pushing this one stage too far?
If memory serves, SpaceX wants to re-use the legs, and it's on a long list of components to figure out in the long term. I think you're on the money.
-
#325
by
Nomadd
on 22 Mar, 2017 17:21
-
... and, to my eyes, the legs look white, like S2 and fairing. Does that mean they're new? Or am I pushing this one stage too far?
Upgraded legs are part of the final block. Since the originals for this stage were old ones, they might have been replaced. That doesn't mean they'll need to replace them once Block 5 is running.
-
#326
by
ChrisC
on 22 Mar, 2017 19:45
-
-
#327
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Mar, 2017 19:52
-
Per this update in the Atlas thread, OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
Gut feeling is no, they would have realigned everything to the new date, but asking.
-
#328
by
Mike_1179
on 22 Mar, 2017 19:59
-
Per this update in the Atlas thread, OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
Gut feeling is no, they would have realigned everything to the new date, but asking.
And "they" is not just SpaceX but the range employees as well. If you make plans to have an 18 hour day later in the week (overtime, shifting hours, etc), it can be rather difficult to re-arrange that on 2 days notice unless you have a really good reason.
--edit--
Oh yeah, forgot about ASDS too. Don't know how long it takes them to get on station and get everything set up to catch a booster, but that timing is already in work too.
-
#329
by
AncientU
on 22 Mar, 2017 20:06
-
Maybe they can pull static fire back to Friday the 24th and take the OA-7 slot on 27th to remove the 'under review' static fire on Sunday.
-
#330
by
dglow
on 22 Mar, 2017 20:13
-
Regarding the range team moving between launches, is SES-10 flying with auto-FTS or not?
-
#331
by
old_sellsword
on 22 Mar, 2017 20:25
-
Regarding the range team moving between launches, is SES-10 flying with auto-FTS or not?
Previously discussed without solid confirmation either way, however it seems likely that it will.
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.
As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.
I'm just saying that it might just have happened that the refurbishment of the core included, at least, the implementation of the new AFTS.
&
Per the Air Force, the AFTS was tested on 13 flights in "shadow mode" prior to being activated for primary FTS on CRS-10. Ergo, assuming all those flights were on F9s, the booster for the SES-10 mission should already have all the necessary hardware/software in place for using AFTS. The upper stage which is new obviously does.
The comment about the 13 previous missions was given by Gen. Monteith, 45th Space Wing Commander: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/
-
#332
by
georgegassaway
on 22 Mar, 2017 20:36
-
Regarding possibly going back to launch on the the 27th, that was going to be a record-setting turnaround between flights if they had done it. Most figured it would get delayed anyway, never mind any range conflicts.
To move the static fire 3 days early to the 23rd...... today is the 21st. So they'd have two days to have it ready to roll out rather than the four they've planned on. I've never noted SpaceX to have things ready AHEAD of time. Otherwise there'd be a 2nd landing pad and 39A would have been ready for a Falcon by last fall (when indeed both were long overdue from original plan anyway). Just sayin'.
At any rate, looking very forward to this. I want to see it fly soon. Although if there were some issues that caused it to be delayed a couple of weeks, to
April 12th, that would be a pretty cool triple-header date.
Almost, but not quite worth the wait.
-
#333
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 22 Mar, 2017 20:50
-
Regarding the range team moving between launches, is SES-10 flying with auto-FTS or not?
Previously discussed without solid confirmation either way, however it seems likely that it will.
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.
As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.
I'm just saying that it might just have happened that the refurbishment of the core included, at least, the implementation of the new AFTS.
&
Per the Air Force, the AFTS was tested on 13 flights in "shadow mode" prior to being activated for primary FTS on CRS-10. Ergo, assuming all those flights were on F9s, the booster for the SES-10 mission should already have all the necessary hardware/software in place for using AFTS. The upper stage which is new obviously does.
The comment about the 13 previous missions was given by Gen. Monteith, 45th Space Wing Commander: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/
It's flying with AFTS.
Source: Brig. Gen. Monteith of the 45th Space Wing who specifically stated Saturday night that Echostar XXIII was the last time SpaceX would fly a traditional FTS.
UPDATE: Updating this after some people have already like this to include the source.
-
#334
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 22 Mar, 2017 20:56
-
To move the static fire 3 days early to the 23rd...... today is the 21st. So they'd have two days to have it ready to roll out rather than the four they've planned on. I've never noted SpaceX to have things ready AHEAD of time. Otherwise there'd be a 2nd landing pad and 39A would have been ready for a Falcon by last fall (when indeed both were long overdue from original plan anyway). Just sayin'.
I agree the likelihood of SpaceX getting 3/27 back AND being able to meet that date are slim, though not impossible. And I get that this is your overall point. But let's not compare apples and oranges to arrive at that conclusion. A mission that was already processing toward 3/27 with a rocket and pad and personnel and Range ready to support a 3/27 launch is not at all the same as EPA regulations/permits/etc. needed to for brand new landing pad construction, nor is it the same as building a brand new pad while juggling other issues and flights.
-
#335
by
dglow
on 22 Mar, 2017 21:53
-
Further, with AFTS confirmed for this flight, swapping slots with Atlas would result in launch opportunity significantly less demanding on the range. What was the number cited, 96 personnel involved with manual FTS? That may represent a longer-term savings, but even so...
-
#336
by
Brovane
on 22 Mar, 2017 22:42
-
Per this update in the Atlas thread, OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
No need to rush the process flow, just because you can.
-
#337
by
IntoTheVoid
on 22 Mar, 2017 23:11
-
Per this update in the Atlas thread, OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
No need to rush the process flow, just because you can.
Who said to rush? The 27th was the range confirmed date until 48 hours ago...
-
#338
by
gongora
on 22 Mar, 2017 23:37
-
The Eastern Range may not be the only organization that could eventually have problems with high launch rates, SpaceX still doesn't have an FAA license for SES-10 flight yet.
-
#339
by
deruch
on 22 Mar, 2017 23:51
-
The Eastern Range may not be the only organization that could eventually have problems with high launch rates, SpaceX still doesn't have an FAA license for SES-10 flight yet.
By the time that they are really getting into the high launch rates, SpaceX should be freezing their design (i.e. Block 5) and therefore will very likely switch to a few Operator-type launch licenses (LLO) as opposed to using Specific-type licenses (LLS) and repeatedly revising it for new launches--they'll need more than one LLO to account for different launch sites and various mission types (LEO/GTO). Once they do that, they will be able to launch an unlimited* number of payloads without having to keep reapplying (so long as the payloads meet the requirements for that LLO license).
*LLO licenses are valid for 5 year terms, so they would still have to renew them periodically. Additional benefit that LLS licenses are only valid for 2 years.
edit: added note about term length.
