-
SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 Jul, 2015 16:36
-
-
#1
by
Kabloona
on 30 Jul, 2015 17:53
-
So...which payload wants to step up and go first? Place your bets.
-
#2
by
rcoppola
on 30 Jul, 2015 18:11
-
I would think a determinant factor is whether they move straight into v1.2 for RTF or swap payloads for the final v1.1 that was to launch Jason-3 by moving CRS-8 over to that final v1.1 for September's RTF.
-
#3
by
Jcc
on 30 Jul, 2015 18:17
-
I am curious about the actions they have already decided to take and what else might be required. For instance, Elon said they plan to.source struts from a different supplier and test them all individually. It seems they intend to look at all other components large or small that need to handle a significant load and make sure they are load tested as well. Any core that is already assembled may need to be disassembled and modified and tested as well. He wants to be flying by Q4 and fly all the payloads they planned for 2015 by year's end (good luck with that).
Of course they won't fly anything until the FAA and customers say they can.
-
#4
by
wannamoonbase
on 30 Jul, 2015 19:23
-
I would think a determinant factor is whether they move straight into v1.2 for RTF or swap payloads for the final v1.1 that was to launch Jason-3 by moving CRS-8 over to that final v1.1 for September's RTF.
Cores changing coasts, I can see wanting to avoid that, unless the cores each return to the factory to be reworked.
I would think that each coast can handle the transition from v1.1 to v1.2 on their own schedules and that they don't need to be linked.
If there is only one v1.1 core and upper stage left it makes sense to me that the newest core (a v1.2) would be finished with the new supports then do the normal McGregor to Cape processing. Then the other existing cores be reworked and used as they are finished. The one remaining v1.1 core would be reworked and flown from VAFB.
-
#5
by
Lee Jay
on 30 Jul, 2015 19:37
-
I'm not up to speed on the differences between 1.1 and 1.2, but I thought I understood that the differences involved both stages and all the engines. If so, I can't see them "wasting" flight-built engines for 1.1. If anything I just said is true, I would expect them to fly out the remaining portion of the 1.1 flight plan (1 flight? 2?) before moving to 1.2. Of course, that means mods to the stages by replacing the struts and possibly anything else they find during the investigation.
-
#6
by
CJ
on 30 Jul, 2015 21:52
-
-
#7
by
ChrisWilson68
on 30 Jul, 2015 22:43
-
So...which payload wants to step up and go first? Place your bets.
CRS seems like the most likely to me. Supplies for ISS aren't usually very expensive compared to a GEO comsat, and are mostly pretty easy to replace if something goes wrong. Also, NASA is probably eager to get another cargo supplier back into business, so they're probably happy to help.
-
#8
by
Wonger
on 30 Jul, 2015 23:18
-
-
#9
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 Jul, 2015 23:51
-
NET is No Earlier Than. Could be 2027 and that NET is fine. If they launch RTF in the middle of September, then that's where the NET is badly wrong.
-
#10
by
Coastal Ron
on 30 Jul, 2015 23:54
-
So...which payload wants to step up and go first? Place your bets.
CRS seems like the most likely to me. Supplies for ISS aren't usually very expensive compared to a GEO comsat, and are mostly pretty easy to replace if something goes wrong. Also, NASA is probably eager to get another cargo supplier back into business, so they're probably happy to help.
And if SpaceX does implement the software that lets the Dragon Cargo deploy parachutes after a launcher failure, then they should have a little more confidence.
-
#11
by
clongton
on 31 Jul, 2015 00:34
-
So...which payload wants to step up and go first? Place your bets.
ISS resupply.
-
#12
by
msat
on 31 Jul, 2015 01:18
-
So...which payload wants to step up and go first? Place your bets.
BFR sitting atop a F9 1.1..... somehow..
-
#13
by
411rocket
on 31 Jul, 2015 06:10
-
NET is No Earlier Than. Could be 2027 and that NET is fine. If they launch RTF in the middle of September, then that's where the NET is badly wrong.
2027 = 8:27 PM (assuming UTC, unless time zone specified), without mentioning day, month or year.....
Phrasing can mean different things, in various areas.
-
#14
by
Mader Levap
on 31 Jul, 2015 10:02
-
AFAIK there is only one 1.1 core left (presumably for Jason-3). Rest is 1.2 (unofficial name, but the longer SpaceX says nothing, the stronger this moniker is).
Can they launch one 1.2 first, then single 1.1, and later 1.2 all the way*? It is very possible, considering that transition from 1.0 to 1.1 caused a lot of noise for Jason-3.
Other possibility is that they have sufficient amout of spare parts etc to launch two 1.1.
So... my bet on order of launches:
1. CRS-8
2. Jason-3
3. SES-9
This bet is risky, as Jason-3 could slip significantly, especially if SpaceX tries to put 1.2 down their throats.
And if SpaceX does implement the software that lets the Dragon Cargo deploy parachutes after a launcher failure, then they should have a little more confidence.
Does not matter. If SpaceX fails twice in row, they are in deep bovine manure.
* Until inevitable 1.3 - you do NOT get everything right with reuse at first try.
-
#15
by
Jim
on 31 Jul, 2015 13:45
-
And if SpaceX does implement the software that lets the Dragon Cargo deploy parachutes after a launcher failure, then they should have a little more confidence.
Does not matter. If SpaceX fails twice in row, they are in deep bovine manure.
And it doesn't help the payloads in the trunk
-
#16
by
ChefPat
on 31 Jul, 2015 16:38
-
So...which payload wants to step up and go first? Place your bets.
Carnegie Mellon and Astrobotic Technology will take advantage of cut-rate pricing on the RTF flight and their current lead in flight-article preparations to stun the world with a moon shot launch in early October in order to claim the entirety of the $20 million Google Lunar X-Prize...
Take THAT Jade Rabbit!!!
Yeah no. We're not even close.
Sorry to hear that.
-
#17
by
dorkmo
on 31 Jul, 2015 17:12
-
on the 1.1 and 1.2 topic, which launch pads are compatible with which versions? is that even an issue?
i know the west coast was getting densification equipment installed. can a 1.2 launch without it? whats the status at east coast?
are there differences in plumbing?
is there a scenario where they'd just mothball the last 1.1?
-
#18
by
Wonger
on 31 Jul, 2015 18:23
-
...
is there a scenario where they'd just mothball the last 1.1?
I doubt it.
For SpaceX, that would be an awfully expensive dust collector. It's already built, and it would be good to get paid for it. Until they achieve RTF, their income stream is interrupted. Even though we haven't heard of them losing any customers, I think their accrual accounting doesn't permit them to recognize most of the income of the contracts already signed until they actually launch.
From a customer standpoint, unless they needed to have the extra performance of the v1.2, I would think the last v1.1 would be the preferable launch vehicle since it represents a lower risk than launching on the first v1.2. Remember, SES wanted to be the first customer on the v1.2 (maybe at a discount?), and now they are waffling. I think the waffling is due to combining the the risk from being first up with a v1.2 AND the risk surrounding the strut issue. Why push your luck?
-
#19
by
Kansan52
on 31 Jul, 2015 18:35
-
And if memory serves, the last V1.1 is promised for the NASA Jason launch. NASA had signed for a Falcon V1 and there was some problem for the to go to a V1.1. Going to a V1.2 is likely a nonstarter.
