-
#1120
by
Lee Jay
on 19 Dec, 2015 14:10
-
If they get the stage back, would that delay the next launch so they'd have time to ship it back to CA to go through it with a fine toothed comb in search of any issues?
-
#1121
by
Bennett
on 19 Dec, 2015 14:28
-
They plan on given it a good look over and use the return stage as test article for Pad 39A
-
#1122
by
mb199
on 19 Dec, 2015 14:32
-
If they get the core back I would be surprised if it ever used again. The first core that returns I would expect it would be taken apart a d analyzed for the effects of the stresses of the launch on the vehicle.
-
#1123
by
Kaputnik
on 19 Dec, 2015 14:38
-
If they get the stage back, would that delay the next launch so they'd have time to ship it back to CA to go through it with a fine toothed comb in search of any issues?
Given that the next scheduled launch is a different version of F9, you have to wonder how useful it would be to delay it pending inspection of the returned core.
-
#1124
by
guckyfan
on 19 Dec, 2015 14:39
-
If they get the core back I would be surprised if it ever used again. The first core that returns I would expect it would be taken apart a d analyzed for the effects of the stresses of the launch on the vehicle.
Their first announcement was they will fly it to failure in New Mexico and use the second recovered core for analysis. Not sure if they will go through with it. Using it for testing LC-39A first is probably a good idea. I wonder if they will hotfire and fly it from there too.
-
#1125
by
woods170
on 19 Dec, 2015 15:16
-
Elon confirms on Twitter that they're aiming for an 8pm local launch and landing at Cape Canaveral.
Yup, and given that Elon explicitly mentions rocket landing at the Cape it also means that FAA has approved this.
-
#1126
by
WHAP
on 19 Dec, 2015 15:52
-
Elon confirms on Twitter that they're aiming for an 8pm local launch and landing at Cape Canaveral.
Yup, and given that Elon explicitly mentions rocket landing at the Cape it also means that FAA has approved this.
His tweet doesn't "mean" that, you just inferred it. Approval may just be a rubber stamp at this point, but I haven't seen anyone specifically say it's been approved, including Elon. Previous posts indicated that the actual approval might not come until as little as an hour before launch, and there's been no evidence that anything has changed (if it was a fact in the first place).
Elon Musk @elonmusk 1h1 hour ago
Currently looking good for a Sunday night (~8pm local) attempted orbital launch and rocket landing at Cape Canaveral
-
#1127
by
Lee Jay
on 19 Dec, 2015 15:54
-
If they get the stage back, would that delay the next launch so they'd have time to ship it back to CA to go through it with a fine toothed comb in search of any issues?
Given that the next scheduled launch is a different version of F9, you have to wonder how useful it would be to delay it pending inspection of the returned core.
The claim is that they are so similar that it doesn't even need recertification.
-
#1128
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 19 Dec, 2015 16:21
-
Well, I'd say what's going on with the ASDS is telling on its own.
-
#1129
by
craigcocca
on 19 Dec, 2015 16:35
-
Two NOTAMs for the launch (one for launch ops, one for "missile" ops:
!FDC 5/9835 (KZMA A1345/15) ZMA FL..AIRSPACE KENNEDY SPACE CENTERR, FL..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS KENNEDY SPACE CENTER SPACE OPERATIONS AREA. PURSUANT TO SECTION 91.143 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULAT1ONS (CFR91.143), FLIGHT OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY FAA CERTIFICATED PILOTS OR CONDUCTED IN AIRCRAFT OF U.S. REGISTRY ARE PROHIBITED AT ANY ALTITUDE FROM THE SFC TO UNL, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREA: DEFINED AS 285116N804219W TO 29073N803000W THENCE CLOCKWISE VIA A 30NM ARC CENTERED AT 283703N803647W TO 281316N801606W TO 282501N803029W TO 282501N803759W TO 282501N804144W TO 283121N804349W TO 283801N804701W TO 284910N805044W TO 285116N804714W TO POINT OF ORIGIN. MIAMI/ZMA/ ARTCC, PHONE 305 716 1589, IS THE COORDINATING FAA FACILITY AND MAY BE CONTACTED FOR THE CURRENT STATUS OF ANY AIRSPACE ASSOCIATED WITH LAUNCH OPERATIONS. THIS AREA ENCOMPASSES R2932, R2933, R2934, AND PORTIONS OF W497A, W136F, W137F AND W137G. ADDITIONAL WARNING AND RESTRICTED AREAS WILL BE ACTIVE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATIONS. PILOTS SHALL CONSULT ALL NOTAMS REGARDING THIS OPERATION. 1512210059-1512210155 !FDC 5/9834 (KZMA A1344/15) ZMA FL..AIRSPACE CAPE CANAVERAL, FL..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS CAPE CANAVERAL SPACE OPERATIONS AREA DEFINED AS 282501N804144W TO 282501N803029W TO 282214N802700W TO 281900N803600W TO 281800N804400W TO POINT OF ORIGIN. SFC TO UNL. MISSILE LAUNCH OPERATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 91.143 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULAT1ONS (CFR91.143) ARE IN EFFECT. MIAMI /ZMA/ ARTCC, PHONE 305-716-1589, IS THE COORDINATING FAA FACILITY AND MAY BE CONTACTED FOR THE CURRENT STATUS OF ANY AIRSPACE ASSOCIATED WITH LAUNCH OPERATIONS. THIS AREA LIES SOUTH OF R2932, R2933, R2934, AND ENCOMPASSES A PORTION OF R2935 AND THE MERRITT ISLAND (COI) AIRPORT. ADDITIONAL WARNING AND RESTRICTED AREAS WILL BE ACTIVE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATIONS. PILOTS SHALL CONSULT ALL NOTAMS REGARDING THIS OPERATION. 1512210059-1512210155
-
#1130
by
craigcocca
on 19 Dec, 2015 16:37
-
IFDC 5/9834 (KZMA A1344/15) ZMA FL..AIRSPACE CAPE CANAVERAL, FL..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS CAPE CANAVERAL SPACE OPERATIONS AREA DEFINED AS 282501N804144W TO 282501N803029W TO 282214N802700W TO 281900N803600W TO 281800N804400W TO POINT OF ORIGIN. SFC TO UNL. MISSILE LAUNCH OPERATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 91.143 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULAT1ONS (CFR91.143) ARE IN EFFECT. MIAMI /ZMA/ ARTCC, PHONE 305-716-1589, IS THE COORDINATING FAA FACILITY AND MAY BE CONTACTED FOR THE CURRENT STATUS OF ANY AIRSPACE ASSOCIATED WITH LAUNCH OPERATIONS. THIS AREA LIES SOUTH OF R2932, R2933, R2934, AND ENCOMPASSES A PORTION OF R2935 AND THE MERRITT ISLAND (COI) AIRPORT. ADDITIONAL WARNING AND RESTRICTED AREAS WILL BE ACTIVE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATIONS. PILOTS SHALL CONSULT ALL NOTAMS REGARDING THIS OPERATION. 1512210059-1512210155
-
#1131
by
Kabloona
on 19 Dec, 2015 16:46
-
Well, I'd say what's going on with the ASDS is telling on its own.
I assume you mean the fact that its regular tugboat Elsbeth III is gone, apparently heading back to Jacksonville.
-
#1132
by
rcoppola
on 19 Dec, 2015 16:49
-
Unless I missed it...Did we ever get an official word from the FAA that they signed off on SpaceXs findings and mitigations wrt the June Failure? I don't recall any reports, even scrubbed ones for public consumption being released. It just seemed to....disappear.
Wouldn't the FAA have needed to sign off on that report before licensing this launch/landing? I'd assume so but have heard no word about it. Just curious.
-
#1133
by
cscott
on 19 Dec, 2015 17:21
-
I don't think they needed an FAA sign off. I think NASA needs to sign off on something before the next CRS flight, but only Orbcomm had to be satisfied for Sunday's flight.
-
#1134
by
ugordan
on 19 Dec, 2015 17:23
-
I think FAA did have to sign off on the failure report conclusions and corrective actions identified.
-
#1135
by
AndrewM
on 19 Dec, 2015 17:37
-
The FAA has signed off on it but Elon nor SpaceX made a statement about it. This has been confirmed and I checked with Chris before posting here.
Edit: add that it was a fact
-
#1136
by
OxCartMark
on 19 Dec, 2015 17:46
-
The FAA has signed off on it but Elon nor SpaceX made a statement about it.
Personal speculation or stated as fact?
-
#1137
by
rcoppola
on 19 Dec, 2015 18:09
-
I think FAA did have to sign off on the failure report conclusions and corrective actions identified.
That's my thought as well. I don't want to belabor the point but the FAA was/is the point agency on the report and I would have expected someone during at least the last couple of weeks as F9/FT was getting close to tomorrow's launch (possible landing) to make some mention of it. I haven't seen any articles or tweets or reporters pose the question either. It just seems odd, that's all.
Edit: Ok, I see AndrewM updated his post. I guess the FAA doesn't need to comment publicly.
-
#1138
by
woods170
on 19 Dec, 2015 20:40
-
I think FAA did have to sign off on the failure report conclusions and corrective actions identified.
That's my thought as well. I don't want to belabor the point but the FAA was/is the point agency on the report and I would have expected someone during at least the last couple of weeks as F9/FT was getting close to tomorrow's launch (possible landing) to make some mention of it. I haven't seen any articles or tweets or reporters pose the question either. It just seems odd, that's all.
Edit: Ok, I see AndrewM updated his post. I guess the FAA doesn't need to comment publicly.
Indeed, they don't. And they don't need to either when approving a Cape Canaveral rocket landing. The fact that there was no formal anouncement from FAA about the approval does not mean there is no approval.
The tweet by Elon is clear enough however. You don't go about announcing an attempt to do a rocket landing, just a few days in advance, when not having FAA approval. IMO, SpaceX already has the blessing of the FAA.
-
#1139
by
Confusador
on 19 Dec, 2015 21:00
-
I think FAA did have to sign off on the failure report conclusions and corrective actions identified.
That's my thought as well. I don't want to belabor the point but the FAA was/is the point agency on the report and I would have expected someone during at least the last couple of weeks as F9/FT was getting close to tomorrow's launch (possible landing) to make some mention of it. I haven't seen any articles or tweets or reporters pose the question either. It just seems odd, that's all.
Edit: Ok, I see AndrewM updated his post. I guess the FAA doesn't need to comment publicly.
Indeed, they don't. And they don't need to either when approving a Cape Canaveral rocket landing. The fact that there was no formal anouncement from FAA about the approval does not mean there is no approval.
The tweet by Elon is clear enough however. You don't go about announcing an attempt to do a rocket landing, just a few days in advance, when not having FAA approval. IMO, SpaceX already has the blessing of the FAA.
I think everyone agrees with that. There are a lot of signs pointing to FAA approval, and it'd be foolish to think it isn't happening at this point. I don't think there's been an official statement, though, for as much as that matters.
