SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION

[guckyfan]

I guess all security protocols are reviewed/changed,

Why?

Because this is the second incident where he was sold junk by a supposedly reliable provider that can bring down a rocket in the timeframe of one year.

He may be forced to work under the assumption that more providers will do the same.

[JamesH]

RTF Nov 2015, according to Jeff Foust/Industry source.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-more-cargo-orders-from-orbital-atk-spacex/

[Jim]

Because this is the second incident where he was sold junk by a supposedly reliable provider that can bring down a rocket in the timeframe of one year.

He may be forced to work under the assumption that more providers will do the same.

What does that have to do with security?

[Jet Black]

Because this is the second incident where he was sold junk by a supposedly reliable provider that can bring down a rocket in the timeframe of one year.

He may be forced to work under the assumption that more providers will do the same.

What does that have to do with security?

I suspect he used the word in error. From context he thinks that a lot of the test protocols will have to change - checking all the externally supplied components themselves. I don't know if this will happen though - they may just have to review some of their supplier agreements just like we (medical industry here, not space) do when someone sends us junk.

[ChefPat]

Yup, SES-9 in November based on that article will be the RTF, followed by CRS-8, also in November.

Musk has also said SpaceX could resume launching as soon as September, but an industry source said Aug. 19 the company is now planning a November return to flight. That launch would be a commercial mission for SES of Luxembourg using the newly upgraded Falcon 9 rocket.

SpaceX’s next cargo run for NASA, its eighth, would also happen in November, this person said.

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-more-cargo-orders-from-orbital-atk-spacex/#sthash.oA4NNOwY.dpuf

I'll bet that "industry source" is actually L2, as we knew this on that date.

[SpaceX_MS]

The difference is this site doesn't rush to publish preliminary information, it works the information and gets it right and that's why we help it. Nothing is decided yet and I suspect that is why Mr Frost only added it as lines to a CRS story, not a story on its own.  Nothing is decided.

[Chris Bergin]

You'll be astonished to hear information isn't controlled by us and other sites have their own sources and so on! . The only difference is I post my source info into L2 as part (it's only part of what L2 is) of the thank you to those folk who support the site by being in L2. Simple as that.

Notably, if there wasn't L2 I wouldn't have things on the open site any faster. Same process to check source info before publishing it out of a small, ringfenced, industry heavy community into the mass hoards who invade the news site and open forum. There's benefits to L2 (heads up, check in a community that is usually involved in the info, work process) and non-L2 members (accuracy of well sourced info) in all of it.

The worst thing for me would be to work info and for it to turn out to be wrong, so it's actually a cheeky grin when another site reports part (and it is only part) of what you're working on and it matches. That's a good sign you're on the right path with your own info.

A lot more to report in the article I'm drafting, but yeah I'm still checking parts and the all important context with the idea to cover a decent status update at the midway point of post failure investigation and progress to RTF - without trying to be a smart ass during what is an internal investigation.

Never a race to be first, it's a priority to be right (and I'm sure that applies for all sites - and as noted SpaceNews didn't rush a "Everyone! It's NOVEMBER! Mark your calendars!" headline. They added an industry source update to an article that covers a wider subject. Oh and SpaceNews aren't just some other site, they are way up there as an industry magazine with a site. I'm totally proud of all involved with this site, but I run it from my front room in my "spare" time and don't get paid. They have an office, high level writers and everything! Oh and they are nice people).

Anyhoo, enough of my rambling - the elephant in the room is completing root cause/mitigation and they are deep into that. Got to get that out of the way before we know a certain RTF schedule.

Today's safe word is: "Preliminary"

[Jcc]

Among the things I would be interested to know is whether the production of components, such as Merlin engines, tanks, avionics, farings, etc., is moving ahead at near normal speed, or if they have put some of that on hold since there will be no launches for  6 months.

I would say it would be a good sign if they went ahead and continued building these things and built up an inventory of parts. The plan had been to ramp up to 2 cores per month by the end of this year, and they could actually do that and sustain it if they have a pipeline of components that won't run dry if there is a hiccup in production of any one of them.

Of course they don't want to build stages that need to be taken apart and rebuilt if the mishap study indicates something that needs to be changed in design or process.

[Space Ghost 1962]

No surprise as to things being up in the air, that other sites rush to release preliminary information. Happens.

Pleasantly surprised that we'll hear more in the form of an update. Go Chris, go.

And it would shock me to the core if anyone actually thought this LOM would have a rapid RTF.  Looked bad from the first second, and from what was released after, decidedly so. Good that appears the issue is being taken to bedrock. Often uncovers many other things too.

BTW my concern has not been "when RTF" but the impact on long term goals like reusing a first stage.

Which might not seem related, except for the minor fact that many first stage components which would receive significant additional fatigue on repeated launch/lands, are also on the second stage, which did not make it through to ignition in this case. Also, am interested in how telemetry will be augmented to be more revealing.

If one's design criteria is breached in LV's "non reuse" flight, what does it say about the potential for reflight of the first stage? The confidence of knowing where the margin actually is, so one can have predictable, validatable reuse.

[Owlon]

...
Which might not seem related, except for the minor fact that many first stage components which would receive significant additional fatigue on repeated launch/lands, are also on the second stage, which did not make it through to ignition in this case. Also, am interested in how telemetry will be augmented to be more revealing.

If one's design criteria is breached in LV's "non reuse" flight, what does it say about the potential for reflight of the first stage? The confidence of knowing where the margin actually is, so one can have predictable, validatable reuse.

The issue with applying that logic to this particular case (according to the leading theory, at least) is that the failure was due to one bad part that didn't meet specifications. Every other strut may have easily survived 1000 launches; they're pretty simple parts. This exact failure mode should be less likely on the second (and fifth and twentieth) flight of a stage than the first flight.

[ZachS09]

Whenever CRS-8 is scheduled to launch in November, I hope it does not fail prematurely again like last time; last night, I had a dream in which the 1st stage Merlin engines ignited at T-30 seconds and lifted off at that instant. Then, the guidance system malfunctioned causing the rocket to veer off course and explode like the Long March incident in 1996. I know that dream is not related to this RTF topic, but that should tell you how worried I am about the rare possibilities of failure even if the problem was fixed already.

[Coastal Ron]

Among the things I would be interested to know is whether the production of components, such as Merlin engines, tanks, avionics, farings, etc., is moving ahead at near normal speed, or if they have put some of that on hold since there will be no launches for  6 months.

Great question.  I don't have any insight into what SpaceX is really doing, but as a manufacturing scheduling manager I've had to deal with issues related to what SpaceX is going through.  So I would imagine the answer is "it depends".

For instance, if they assume that they will be able to catch up on customer flights within a short period of time, then rocket components that were ruled out as potential failure modes would likely keep being produced as long as they have enough storage space for them.  That would include rocket engines, which not only have to be built in L.A., but shipped to Texas to be tested and then shipped back to L.A. for integration into the 1st and 2nd stages.

Production of the Dragon spacecraft likely would be continuing too, as would fairings.

For the 1st and 2nd stage rocket bodies those may have stopped production after the accident, since they didn't know what the failure mode was, but they know that a stage ripped open.  However since they were setting up their production facility to be able to produce 40 stages per year, catching up won't be a big issue with their current launch backlog.

[king1999]

Whenever CRS-8 is scheduled to launch in November, I hope it does not fail prematurely again like last time; last night, I had a dream in which the 1st stage Merlin engines ignited at T-30 seconds and lifted off at that instant. Then, the guidance system malfunctioned causing the rocket to veer off course and explode like the Long March incident in 1996. I know that dream is not related to this RTF topic, but that should tell you how worried I am about the rare possibilities of failure even if the problem was fixed already.

Man, you need to stay off NSF a bit to detoxy.

[JamesH]

Whenever CRS-8 is scheduled to launch in November, I hope it does not fail prematurely again like last time; last night, I had a dream in which the 1st stage Merlin engines ignited at T-30 seconds and lifted off at that instant. Then, the guidance system malfunctioned causing the rocket to veer off course and explode like the Long March incident in 1996. I know that dream is not related to this RTF topic, but that should tell you how worried I am about the rare possibilities of failure even if the problem was fixed already.

This is akin to young girls the world over being worried about One Direction splitting up. It's really not something that is worth being worried about. You cannot do anything to affect the outcome, the people who can are working hard on it. Much as we like to think it is, it's nothing to do with us! So, One Directions SpaceX fans, worry not.

[ZachS09]

Whenever CRS-8 is scheduled to launch in November, I hope it does not fail prematurely again like last time; last night, I had a dream in which the 1st stage Merlin engines ignited at T-30 seconds and lifted off at that instant. Then, the guidance system malfunctioned causing the rocket to veer off course and explode like the Long March incident in 1996. I know that dream is not related to this RTF topic, but that should tell you how worried I am about the rare possibilities of failure even if the problem was fixed already.

Man, you need to stay off NSF a bit to detoxy.

Does that mean I should not be a member?

[cdleonard]

Does anyone know if they will continue to attempt barge landings for the next flights? I've seen no mention of this.

SES-9 is a GEO mission which probably won't leave enough fuel for a landing. It's apparently 5300kg and will be placed in a subsynchronous orbit and complete it's insertion using it's own propulsion.

CRS-8 is a normal ISS mission so there's no technical reason not to attempt it.

[Kansan52]

"Does that mean I should not be a member?"

No.

And I assert that knowledge (NSF style) will help alleviate the bad dreams!!

[Jarnis]

Does anyone know if they will continue to attempt barge landings for the next flights? I've seen no mention of this.

SES-9 is a GEO mission which probably won't leave enough fuel for a landing. It's apparently 5300kg and will be placed in a subsynchronous orbit and complete it's insertion using it's own propulsion.

CRS-8 is a normal ISS mission so there's no technical reason not to attempt it.

v1.2 should have extra margin due to densification and I'd expect a barge attempt.

CRS-8 could very well be land landing attempt, but we don't know yet. Probably nobody knows until after SES-9 launch.

[Kabloona]

Does anyone know if they will continue to attempt barge landings for the next flights? I've seen no mention of this.

SES-9 is a GEO mission which probably won't leave enough fuel for a landing. It's apparently 5300kg and will be placed in a subsynchronous orbit and complete it's insertion using it's own propulsion.

CRS-8 is a normal ISS mission so there's no technical reason not to attempt it.

No reason that we know of not to expect landing attempts on CRS-8 and Jason-3.

[nadreck]

Does anyone know if they will continue to attempt barge landings for the next flights? I've seen no mention of this.

SES-9 is a GEO mission which probably won't leave enough fuel for a landing. It's apparently 5300kg and will be placed in a subsynchronous orbit and complete it's insertion using it's own propulsion.

CRS-8 is a normal ISS mission so there's no technical reason not to attempt it.

Over on the SES-9 thread under Missions we had blithely been discussing recovering the booster as this flight would feature a full thrust Merlin and densified lox and RP-1.  At that point no one was suggesting a subsynchronous orbit either it was at least GTO (though not super synchronous).