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

[meekGee]

Well there goes the daylight launch out the window. The Jan 6 date is scheduled for 6:18 am ET instantaneous window, sunrise is at 7:16 am ET at the Cape. The launch will in the dark. The first stage landing will be in the dark most likely or slightly before sunrise so I don't know how good of video there will be for that. Night launches are kinda cool once or twice but they are mostly just a bright light that drowns everything else out, perhaps its better if your are there viewing with the naked eye. Kinda of a  bummer, I was really looking forward to viewing this launch and the first stage return.  Have to wait for a later launch for better video it looks like.

I wonder if floodlights will be installed on the ship - that might actually make the barge easier to see from above, as well as seeing the rocket stage slamming on the surface.... 

I suppose they *could* attach a large, downward-pointing floodlight to the base of the stage to illuminate the landing platform. 

I think they already did that. It's powered by kerosene and is quite bright.

Heh, exactly.  Landing lights on a retro landing rocket is like mountain-top beacons on an active volcano

[nadreck]

Makes you wonder if/how the 'rapidly reusable' dream will be realised.

Actually it gives me quite a bit of hope for it. Something goes wrong, they find it, they fix it, they then know how to prevent, detect earlier, and repair quicker and cheaper the next time.

[Jim]

Although surely there are *some* vehicle-side issues discovered during static fire, I think it would be a safe guess to assume that most of the issues discovered during static fire are related in some way to the Cape's GSE

Bad assumption.  Most are vehicle related

[baldusi]

I wonder why SpaceX keeps experiencing hardware problems that crop up during the Cape hot fire tests.  The stages have been test fired at McGregor.  What has changed?  Obviously the company would prefer to iron out any issues in Texas.  Could it be that something about the McGregor testing is causing the problems?

 - Ed Kyle

It's a logical consequence of their design. 9 times more engines means 9 times more probability of valves anomalies at the pad. That's the price they pay for their architechture. I'd rather have this anomalies than Proton's.
In any case, you know pretty well that the fact that a valve has worked one time doesn't means that it will work perfectly the next time. There might have been some contamination on the line, the testing might have actually degraded the seals, or something like that. Hydraulic and cryogenic valves are mighty unreliable when compared to things like pneumatic actuator valves (and those can be a PITA anyways).

[Paul Adams]

Look at the early history of nearly every rocket there has been, early launch attempts were delayed for one reason or another.

Each time there is a delay like this, SpaceX will learn and correct the problem until eventually such delays are a rarity.

[wannamoonbase]

Look at the early history of nearly every rocket there has been, early launch attempts were delayed for one reason or another.

Each time there is a delay like this, SpaceX will learn and correct the problem until eventually such delays are a rarity.

Exactly, they haven't had that many launches when it comes to being able to learn these lessons.  They'll get better.  But be patient.

I think there are several things going on:
1) still learning, not enough cycles with the vehicle, by flight 100 this won't be a legit excuse.
2) SpaceX is trying to do things different and more affordabley than traditional launch provides, perhaps some of these delays are finding those boundaries of cost versus reliability
3) some of these components are at cryogenic temps and performance is tougher when things are super cold.  Just ask a person who's experienced owning, starting and driving a vehicle at -40C. 

[Prober]

WRT Falcon and valves, minor Google-fu reveals numerous Atlas V and Delta IV issues and scrubs due to valves as well - including EFT-1.

Yes but ULA folks quickly fix the issues, and launch.   It's doesn't take ULA weeks of downtime to fix the recurring problems.

[ChrisWilson68]

WRT Falcon and valves, minor Google-fu reveals numerous Atlas V and Delta IV issues and scrubs due to valves as well - including EFT-1.

Yes but ULA folks quickly fix the issues, and launch.   It's doesn't take ULA weeks of downtime to fix the recurring problems.

The SpaceX problem was fixable in a day or two.  It only got pushed to January because of NASA's constraints on when they could visit the ISS combined with the Christmas holiday.  The delay before that was at NASA's request so NASA could scramble to get new cargo after Orbital blew up their vehicle.  I guess you missed that.

I guess you also missed over the last summer the way SpaceX did three commercial launches in a row from the same pad with well under a month in between -- far faster turn-around time than ULA ever does.

[edkyle99]

Look at the early history of nearly every rocket there has been, early launch attempts were delayed for one reason or another.

Each time there is a delay like this, SpaceX will learn and correct the problem until eventually such delays are a rarity.

My comparison is with Saturn I, which used a similar clustered-engine LOX/RP booster first stage. 

SpaceX is attempting to launch its ninth Falcon 9 v1.1.  SA-8 was the ninth Saturn I.  It was launched on May 25, 1965 on the first attempt after experiencing no technical holds.  Its stages were test fired in Mississippi and California during 1964 and shipped to the Cape in February 1965.  There, they were erected at SLC 37B and tested, including cryo loading, and, with little drama, launched.

I look forward to the day when SpaceX can replicate what had become routine for Chrysler, Douglas, IBM, Rocketdyne, North American, RCA, and MSFC in 1965.

 - Ed Kyle

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think that little problems like these are good to keep the crew alert and on edge. The last thing you want is things to feel too routine (and boring) too early. That is when catastrophic mistakes happen. I for one am happy that SpaceX is playing it safe and that they are taking the extra time. It shows that they are not letting things get "too routine" quite yet.
In this context, I have been wondering. The military will do unannounced drills sometimes where they simulate an actual event of sorts with only a few members of the group knowing about it being just a drill. The computer could be programed to show false data of a catastrophic failure somewhere and then you see how the crew reacts and how quickly the problem is resolved. I am wondering whether SpaceX would be legally allowed to do that, at least during a static fire test. I don't think they could do that during a launch as it would probably be too expensive and piss a lot of people off (after all there are a lot of non SpaceX people directly and indirectly involved with an actual launch). If I was Elon Musk, I would definitely think about something like that to keep my people alert. IMHO SpaceX is not ready yet to let things get too routine and the past smooth launches made things look almost too easy.

[dave1938]

Although surely there are *some* vehicle-side issues discovered during static fire, I think it would be a safe guess to assume that most of the issues discovered during static fire are related in some way to the Cape's GSE

Bad assumption.  Most are vehicle related

Sorry, you are mistaken. At best these type of issues (pre-launch are at best 50/50 with GSE and flight hardware. This is based on my 42 year career at KSC as a engineer working in the Launch Control Center.
 

[Jim]

Sorry, you are mistaken. At best these type of issues (pre-launch are at best 50/50 with GSE and flight hardware. This is based on my 42 year career at KSC as a engineer working in the Launch Control Center.
 

No, it is you that is mistaken.   I was just stating a fact in regard to the Spacex past issues and not making a judgement call based on experience.

[Jim]

In this context, I have been wondering. The military will do unannounced drills sometimes where they simulate an actual event of sorts with only a few members of the group knowing about it being just a drill. The computer could be programed to show false data of a catastrophic failure somewhere and then you see how the crew reacts and how quickly the problem is resolved. I am wondering whether SpaceX would be legally allowed to do that, at least during a static fire test. I don't think they could do that during a launch as it would probably be too expensive and piss a lot of people off (after all there are a lot of non SpaceX people directly and indirectly involved with an actual launch). If I was Elon Musk, I would definitely think about something like that to keep my people alert. IMHO SpaceX is not ready yet to let things get too routine and the past smooth launches made things look almost too easy.

And it would be wrong to do that with hardware in the loop.  That is what launch sims* are for, which everybody does.   

* they are also called mission dress rehearsals, integrated crew exercises, green card runs.....

[ChrisWilson68]

Look at the early history of nearly every rocket there has been, early launch attempts were delayed for one reason or another.

Each time there is a delay like this, SpaceX will learn and correct the problem until eventually such delays are a rarity.

My comparison is with Saturn I, which used a similar clustered-engine LOX/RP booster first stage. 

SpaceX is attempting to launch its ninth Falcon 9 v1.1.  SA-8 was the ninth Saturn I.  It was launched on May 25, 1965 on the first attempt after experiencing no technical holds.  Its stages were test fired in Mississippi and California during 1964 and shipped to the Cape in February 1965.  There, they were erected at SLC 37B and tested, including cryo loading, and, with little drama, launched.

I look forward to the day when SpaceX can replicate what had become routine for Chrysler, Douglas, IBM, Rocketdyne, North American, RCA, and MSFC in 1965.

You're making this too easy!

The first four Saturn I launches were suborbital.  Only six Saturn I launches ever went to orbit.  Falcon 9 v1.1 has had eight orbital launches.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

The payload to LEO of Saturn I was 9,000 kg.  The payload to LEO of Falcon 9 v1.1 is 13,150 kg.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

The most launches of a Saturn I in a single year was 3.  In 2014, Falcon 9 v1.1 launched 6 times.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

The fastest turn-around time between Saturn I launches was between SA-8 and SA-10 and was 71 days.  Falcon 9 had only 14 days between launching AsiaSat 6 and CRS-4.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

Saturn I never got a stage close to returning intact.  Falcon 9 v1.1 has already done two water landings where the stage was intact before a short drop a few tens of meters into the sea.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

But lets ignore all that and focus on the fact that SpaceX took a couple of days to change out a valve.

[deruch]

Look at the early history of nearly every rocket there has been, early launch attempts were delayed for one reason or another.

Each time there is a delay like this, SpaceX will learn and correct the problem until eventually such delays are a rarity.

My comparison is with Saturn I, which used a similar clustered-engine LOX/RP booster first stage. 

SpaceX is attempting to launch its ninth Falcon 9 v1.1.  SA-8 was the ninth Saturn I.  It was launched on May 25, 1965 on the first attempt after experiencing no technical holds.  Its stages were test fired in Mississippi and California during 1964 and shipped to the Cape in February 1965.  There, they were erected at SLC 37B and tested, including cryo loading, and, with little drama, launched.

I look forward to the day when SpaceX can replicate what had become routine for Chrysler, Douglas, IBM, Rocketdyne, North American, RCA, and MSFC in 1965.

You're making this too easy!

The first four Saturn I launches were suborbital.  Only six Saturn I launches ever went to orbit.  Falcon 9 v1.1 has had eight orbital launches.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

The payload to LEO of Saturn I was 9,000 kg.  The payload to LEO of Falcon 9 v1.1 is 13,150 kg.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

The most launches of a Saturn I in a single year was 3.  In 2014, Falcon 9 v1.1 launched 6 times.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

The fastest turn-around time between Saturn I launches was between SA-8 and SA-10 and was 71 days.  Falcon 9 had only 14 days between launching AsiaSat 6 and CRS-4.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

Saturn I never got a stage close to returning intact.  Falcon 9 v1.1 has already done two water landings where the stage was intact before a short drop a few tens of meters into the sea.  So SpaceX has already not just replicated but gone beyond Saturn I.

But lets ignore all that and focus on the fact that SpaceX took a couple of days to change out a valve.

I want to like this.  But if I do, does that mean that I'm agreeing with the closing statement or the sarcasm behind it? 

[Ben the Space Brit]

Additionally, I wonder if this would make visual tracking of the approaching core easier, at least during periods when it is actively thrusting. Beyond that, battery-powered LEDs on the landing legs that activate at landing +30 seconds are pretty much the only thing required.

Turning on lights 30 seconds after landing won't do much for tracking, will it? 

Alright, smarty pants! I meant 30 seconds BEFORE landing. Are you happy now?

[edkyle99]

You're making this too easy!

The first four Saturn I launches were suborbital.  (...etc)

I'm not examining the flight results, or the presence of an upper stage.  I'm comparing the launch campaign results.  This comparison shows that SpaceX is still experiencing problems that were solved at this stage of an earlier, largely comparable program.  And it isn't just about two days on this campaign.  It is about the recurring issues during multiple campaigns.

 - Ed Kyle

[Ben the Space Brit]

Oh and I thought this would be a stock photo, but it's not - it's of the CRS-5 F9 - because I see grid fins......

So, now we see what I presume is the full reusable core configuration. Is this the shape of the future? We'll have to wait and se!

[cambrianera]

Barely comparable, not largely comparable.
Lot of differences in money invested, approach, technical support, public support etc etc etc.

[cambrianera]

Oh and I thought this would be a stock photo, but it's not - it's of the CRS-5 F9 - because I see grid fins......

So, now we see what I presume is the full reusable core configuration. Is this the shape of the future? We'll have to wait and se!

No, legs will change.