SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Dragon - CRS-5/SpX-5 -Jan. 10, 2015 - DISCUSSION

[Helodriver]

The propulsion system must only be used for station keeping as barge is being pushed by a tug.

That was never in doubt for most of us - except for a vocal minority here.

Hey, you could've been wrong.

No one who knows marine vessels ever thought differently. This platform is much more barge than ship. Now that we've seen new pictures it appears modifications are minimal. Only whats needed to be a stable base for initial landings and not much else. Very much in the SpaceX style of doing business.

[guckyfan]

The deck of the landing barge sure looks solid. The new Twitter pic.

I'm not sure - Here it is in full resolution, from SpaceX's latest update: http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/12/16/x-marks-spot-falcon-9-attempts-ocean-platform-landing

Note how at some points it looks like you can barely ee light reflections from waves through the deck (top left) - and also the part overhanging water does look darker. I think it there is a grid element there.

I agree. You can even see structure from the end of the barge continue under the deck. I am almost completely convinced now that it is a grid.

[NWade]

Something to note: Just because it has a rectilinear pattern doesn't mean its a "grid" of raised metal. It could also be slabs of material laid out with some kind of sealant / heat-resistant coating on top. Look at concrete airport ramps on a map program (like this) and you'll see a grid-like pattern. But what you see on that map link is most definitely a solid surface. 
 
--Noel
(pilot and thus frequent airport-user)
 

[darkenfast]

Well, most of us were right about a stock barge being the basis of this, and about a tug being used for the transit, but I was one of those quite wrong about the height of the landing deck above the barge deck.  They must feel very confident that the various containers at the bow and stern will survive the blast!!

[guckyfan]

Something to note: Just because it has a rectilinear pattern doesn't mean its a "grid" of raised metal. It could also be slabs of material laid out with some kind of sealant / heat-resistant coating on top. Look at concrete airport ramps on a map program (like this) and you'll see a grid-like pattern. But what you see on that map link is most definitely a solid surface. 
 
--Noel
(pilot and thus frequent airport-user)
 

I don't even see a gridlike pattern. But it sure looks like you can see through and see the contours of the barge body.

[sghill]

You can also make out all 4 thruster pods in this photo lurking in the shadows of the corners, one of them is peeking out on the top waterse (stern port side)

[Ben the Space Brit]

I was asking SpaceX for updates and they moved to a stance of saying they would let me know as soon as they had the Static Fire confirmation - which is usual and fine. SpaceX is very helpful towards us, but at the same time they are a commercial company and don't give running commentaries about their flows.

I asked again after we heard the Static Fire attempt didn't work out, and I was told they can't comment yet, but would when they would be able to.

It's my experience that SpaceX suddenly clams up and goes 'no comment' when something has gone wrong and possibly seriously wrong.

[MattMason]

It's the text of SpaceX's latest update that's filled with implications like an overstuffed jelly doughnut with fascinating similes and nods to other bits of info we know.

At 14 stories tall and traveling upwards of 1300 m/s (nearly 1 mi/s), stabilizing the Falcon 9 first stage for reentry is like trying to balance a rubber broomstick on your hand in the middle of a wind storm.

Rather curious and disturbing image there, isn't it?

During previous attempts, we could only expect a landing accuracy of within 10km. For this attempt, we’re targeting a landing accuracy of within 10 meters.

Grasshopper and F9-R, this ain't--but we hope it works as well.

The concept of landing a rocket on an ocean platform has been around for decades but it has never been attempted. Though the probability of success on this test is low, we expect to gather critical data to support future landing testing.

A nod to the patent wars with Blue Origin on such landings, perhaps, despite many others making attempts and designs prior to the patent.

[cscott]

I was asking SpaceX for updates and they moved to a stance of saying they would let me know as soon as they had the Static Fire confirmation - which is usual and fine. SpaceX is very helpful towards us, but at the same time they are a commercial company and don't give running commentaries about their flows.

I asked again after we heard the Static Fire attempt didn't work out, and I was told they can't comment yet, but would when they would be able to.

It's my experience that SpaceX suddenly clams up and goes 'no comment' when something has gone wrong and possibly seriously wrong.

They also go quiet for a number of other reasons.  Implication only goes one way -- just because "something going seriously wrong" implies "SpaceX goes quiet" does not mean that "SpaceX goes quiet" implies "something has gone seriously wrong".

Plus, L2 has a unconfirmed new date for the static fire which does not support your "seriously wrong" hypothesis.  So I can scold you about logical implication with some assurance I'm not going to end up with egg on my face.

[Kabloona]

Go Quest now seems to be zigzagging slowly up and down the coast a few miles offshore of Jacksonville. Maybe a sea trial of some of their equipment.

After puttering around aimlessly all night, Go Quest headed northeast out to sea this morning around 7:00 am Eastern time at 9 knots. AIS contact was lost at 7:40 am, around 10 nm off shore. Probably they turned off the AIS transponder, as on the Elsbeth III, to prevent tracking.

[WHAP]

I was asking SpaceX for updates and they moved to a stance of saying they would let me know as soon as they had the Static Fire confirmation - which is usual and fine. SpaceX is very helpful towards us, but at the same time they are a commercial company and don't give running commentaries about their flows.

I asked again after we heard the Static Fire attempt didn't work out, and I was told they can't comment yet, but would when they would be able to.

It's my experience that SpaceX suddenly clams up and goes 'no comment' when something has gone wrong and possibly seriously wrong.

They also go quiet for a number of other reasons.  Implication only goes one way -- just because "something going seriously wrong" implies "SpaceX goes quiet" does not mean that "SpaceX goes quiet" implies "something has gone seriously wrong".

Plus, L2 has a unconfirmed new date for the static fire which does not support your "seriously wrong" hypothesis.  So I can scold you about logical implication with some assurance I'm not going to end up with egg on my face.

What gives you the authority to define which way the implication goes?  It is more logical, and more consistent with previous behavior (which was Ben's point), that SpaceX going quiet implies a problem, not the other way around (which makes absolutely no sense to me because SpaceX going quiet isn't an implication, it's a fact).  If there's a new static fire date, something went wrong.  So Ben was right.  Whether or not it meets someone's definition of "seriously wrong" will be debated ad nauseum, once (if) we find out what the problem was.

[Oberon_Command]

I was asking SpaceX for updates and they moved to a stance of saying they would let me know as soon as they had the Static Fire confirmation - which is usual and fine. SpaceX is very helpful towards us, but at the same time they are a commercial company and don't give running commentaries about their flows.

I asked again after we heard the Static Fire attempt didn't work out, and I was told they can't comment yet, but would when they would be able to.

It's my experience that SpaceX suddenly clams up and goes 'no comment' when something has gone wrong and possibly seriously wrong.

They also go quiet for a number of other reasons.  Implication only goes one way -- just because "something going seriously wrong" implies "SpaceX goes quiet" does not mean that "SpaceX goes quiet" implies "something has gone seriously wrong".

Plus, L2 has a unconfirmed new date for the static fire which does not support your "seriously wrong" hypothesis.  So I can scold you about logical implication with some assurance I'm not going to end up with egg on my face.

What gives you the authority to define which way the implication goes?

I think he was just referring to the logical definition of "implication," which is "A implies B" (A -> B) is logically equivalent to "either not A or B" (~A v B). Therefore if A implies B then B can be true and A false and the statement (the implication, that is) will still be true.

Ben's point seems to be that if something goes wrong, then SpaceX clams up ("something went wrong" implies "SpaceX will clam up"). As a statement by itself this does not mean that SpaceX clamming up means that something has gone wrong unless Ben meant the statement as two-way implication, which is unclear from the post. As for "who gave him the authority," that would be both the rules of logic and the original poster of the statement in question, which was Ben.

[swervin]

Hate to be fun police, but you all are killing the vibe here and sound ridiculous. The static fire didn't occur yesterday, copy. It will in the future, copy.

Calm down everyone... It's a rocket. It's not a simple machine. No reason to overthink things and argue arguments.

Splinter

[Lars-J]

I was asking SpaceX for updates and they moved to a stance of saying they would let me know as soon as they had the Static Fire confirmation - which is usual and fine. SpaceX is very helpful towards us, but at the same time they are a commercial company and don't give running commentaries about their flows.

I asked again after we heard the Static Fire attempt didn't work out, and I was told they can't comment yet, but would when they would be able to.

It's my experience that SpaceX suddenly clams up and goes 'no comment' when something has gone wrong and possibly seriously wrong.

Then things just goes wrong for them all the time, since they aren't as open as they used to be. But then again it does not make sense for them to publish as much information about the pad flow of the 9th flight of an operational vehicle compared to the first few launches. (yes, this will F9v1.1 flight number NINE)

[majormajor42]

So many threads...hope this is the right one. Haven't posted in a while but back in the speculation days, before we had pictures of the barge, or knew what type of barge they were using I remember wondering (without these details):

How close will these two support ships, Go Quest and Elisabeth III, be able to be stationed to the ASDS during the anticipated recovery?

[cscott]

Static Fire was scrubbed (asked around all day). Next attempt looking at Thursday (they may push for one today, but no sign of that yet). If Thursday and if successful, can they launch Friday is the next question:

The feed at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/ksclive/kscv09.html is still showing color bars and a wandering wizard.  Is that an indication that they are going to try again today?  (Or did they just forget to restore the feed after the attempt yesterday?)

[OnWithTheShow]

Random question: Is it possible for SpaceX to swap out a 1st stage Merlin at the launch site if an issue arises with one of the 9? I would imagine yes because it would be a nightmare to ship the stage back to Hawthorne. Then again they would no longer have had a 9 engine test fire (other than a pad static fire).

[Lars-J]

Random question: Is it possible for SpaceX to swap out a 1st stage Merlin at the launch site if an issue arises with one of the 9? I would imagine yes because it would be a nightmare to ship the stage back to Hawthorne. Then again they would no longer have had a 9 engine test fire (other than a pad static fire).

Yes, it has already been done at least once. (for a previous flight)

[OnWithTheShow]

Ok thanks. I didnt remember it having been done before. Which mission was it? Do we know the reason they swapped engines and how long it took? Sorry if this is OT. Mods feel free to relocate.

[abaddon]

Ok thanks. I didnt remember it having been done before. Which mission was it? Do we know the reason they swapped engines and how long it took? Sorry if this is OT. Mods feel free to relocate.

These are good questions to ask.  In addition, I wonder if they have replacement pre-qualified Merlin(s) on-site?  If not, presumably they would ship from McGregor, which I imagine would take at least a couple of days.