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

[TomH]

It is also understood that the ASDS will have the ability to refuel returned stages, allowing them to make the hop back to land for future reuse.

Even if they successfully make these things reusable, the total lifetime in flight hours will likely not exceed single digit numbers for quite some time. The amount of vibrational stresses will be too much for a fuselage necessarily engineered to be as lightweight as possible. Time on the engines is limited and expensive as well. Then there is the fact that you are taking a substantial risk of LOV every time you attempt to land the thing.

It seems far less expensive and less risky just to return the stage to Canaveral via sea. Flying the thing back is not only risky and expensive, it simply is not necessary. I do not see flyback from the barge happening under any scenario.

[Lar]

I do not see flyback from the barge happening under any scenario.

Elon is quoted as not agreeing with you. He may be wrong but it's the current plan. SpaceX plans change all the time, just saying.

Probably a bit far afield from this mission to discuss further.

[mvpel]

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)

Whenever SpaceX clams up, I don't assume something went wrong - I just think back to my company's ITAR training and the dire warnings of potential career and financial ruin found therein, and consider it a probable reason why SpaceX isn't as open as they used to be. We got dinged for $8 million last year because various people were too open with our own customers. One of the SMEs I work with from Mathworks is actually a Canadian expat, and I can't even meet with him in the lobby without a week's worth of paperwork and Ex/Im approvals.

ITAR fines can cripple your business

I wonder what's the over/under on how many Chinese and Russian "fishing boats" will be loitering in the vicinity of the Marmac 300...

[MTom]

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.

SES-8, gas-generator replaced on center engine.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/spacex-falcon-9-v1-1-milestone-ses-8-launch/

[Jim]

I wonder what's the over/under on how many Chinese and Russian "fishing boats" will be loitering in the vicinity of the Marmac 300...

Zero.  Chinese don't play in the Atlantic and Russia doesn't need to worry.  And they can watch the video

[MechE31]

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.

SES-8, gas-generator replaced on center engine.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/spacex-falcon-9-v1-1-milestone-ses-8-launch/

Gas Generator swap is far from a full engine swap.

I'm almost positive that no engine swaps have been performed on a V1.1 at the Cape. I seem to possibly remember hearing about one on a V1.0, but the changes in engine installation between F9 and F9 V1.1 are major.

[ugordan]

Press kit: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SpaceX_NASA_CRS-5_PressKit.pdf

No target orbit published. That'll go along nicely with no hardware processing images published, continuing the nice tradition started with CRS-4.

The (continuing) deliberate lack of precision in the launch phase timetable also gets a LOL since more precise numbers *are* mentioned in the text.

[ugordan]

I seem to possibly remember hearing about one on a V1.0

Me too, but I don't know if that was because that was one option for COTS-2/3 vehicle troubleshooting mentioned by Shotwell at the time or some flight actually did get a replacement engine.

[ChrisWilson68]

It is also understood that the ASDS will have the ability to refuel returned stages, allowing them to make the hop back to land for future reuse.

Even if they successfully make these things reusable, the total lifetime in flight hours will likely not exceed single digit numbers for quite some time. The amount of vibrational stresses will be too much for a fuselage necessarily engineered to be as lightweight as possible. Time on the engines is limited and expensive as well. Then there is the fact that you are taking a substantial risk of LOV every time you attempt to land the thing.

It seems far less expensive and less risky just to return the stage to Canaveral via sea. Flying the thing back is not only risky and expensive, it simply is not necessary. I do not see flyback from the barge happening under any scenario.

So it's your position that there's an obvious reason it can't possibly happen, even though SpaceX is actively planning to do it?  Which do you think more likely -- everyone at SpaceX is so incompetent they can't see something obvious, or that you're reasoning is flawed?

[llanitedave]

I can see it as a possibility if the flight rate gets high enough that they need the stage available right now.  Otherwise, a leisurely trip back to port takes a couple of days at most.  There shouldn't be any hurry for some years to come.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Over on the updates thread, Chris is reporting that the earliest launch date is now the first week of January. Implication in Chris's post is that there is something wrong with the launch vehicle that will need time to resolve.

[robertross]

Over on the updates thread, Chris is reporting that the earliest launch date is now the first week of January. Implication in Chris's post is that there is something wrong with the launch vehicle that will need time to resolve.

Bummer.
So much for those X-mas goodies for the crew (including fresh food)

(and the required spares)

[jabe]

I wonder if the long delay is also partially due to the Christmas break
jb

[Chris Bergin]

I wonder if the long delay is also partially due to the Christmas break
jb

Not too sure. I remember one launch option (a while a go during planning) showed December 26. The Cape guys hated the idea of that one.

Remember, this is SpaceX and they do things differently. We really need an official note.

[Lee Jay]

Another reminder -  Thaicom 6 launched January 6th of 2014.

Maybe it'll become a tradition.

[Brovane]

I wonder if the long delay is also partially due to the Christmas break
jb

Not too sure. I remember one launch option (a while a go during planning) showed December 26. The Cape guys hated the idea of that one.

Remember, this is SpaceX and they do things differently. We really need an official note.

I know last year they tried to launch SES-8 on Thanksgiving and then had to scrub during countdown.  That launch attempt on Thanksgiving probably didn't make them real popular around the Cape.  Hopefully we can find out more about what is going with the vehicle that is causing the delays. 

[robertross]

A question I would have is what's next for the barge?
I imagine they will have it return to port, rather than keeping it out there for 3 weeks or more?

[Prober]

A question I would have is what's next for the barge?

The Ocean environment starts its work of decay.

Well you asked

[robertross]

A question I would have is what's next for the barge?

The Ocean environment starts its work of decay.

Well you asked

cute.

Well, one good storm and it could be game over for the barge, so I'm placing solid bets on it returning.
(plus I'm sure no crew wants to be left out there over the holidays, or any indefinite period of time)

[Norm38]

I don't understand why they waited so long to do the static fire.  They last launched in October, they've had hardware at the cape long enough to prep it right?  It feels like they waited till the last minute, and didn't leave themselves enough time to fix issues.