Lots of reposts of photos and content created by others today. It's always nice to reference/credit the sources.On a different subject, what are all the streaks flying around before and for a short while after S2 ignition? Looks to me like pulsed streams of liquid from a bunch of different outlets? I don't recall seeing anything like that in previous flights.
Quote from: bstrong on 12/23/2015 01:28 amLots of reposts of photos and content created by others today. It's always nice to reference/credit the sources.On a different subject, what are all the streaks flying around before and for a short while after S2 ignition? Looks to me like pulsed streams of liquid from a bunch of different outlets? I don't recall seeing anything like that in previous flights.I cannot recall if Falcon 9 uses pyrotechnic bolts, commonly used to hold stages together on modern launch vehicles. If Falcon 9 uses such bolts, the sparks you see are these bolts detonating to separate the first and second stages. If SpaceX doesn't use such bolts, you're seeing an equivalent separator activating, which is no cause for alarm.
i have a question so please help. What is that S shaped thing on the big screen in the control room? Its at exactly 34:23 please take a look I am looking at it and going what view is that, what is it?
That all said... is it really important? Does anyone think that the soot will do anything, other than make them spend a little more effort cleaning the stage? (Honest question here).
I get that this forum is obsessed with every little detail. (As am I... I wouldn't be here if I wasn't). I also get that the soot is a very obvious sign of use, and the pattern looks odd, and it's interesting to speculate why it looks like it does.That all said... is it really important? Does anyone think that the soot will do anything, other than make them spend a little more effort cleaning the stage? (Honest question here). It seems likely to me that this will be waaaaay down on a list of things that might make it hard to refurbish a once-used first stage.I did see some speculation from someone that the dark color near the octaweb is ablative coating, not soot, and that's a little more interesting if it is on the nose. If it is ablative than there is going to be a plan to replace it in place already, I'd imagine.
The first stage appears to have buckled right above the octoweb. You can see this most clearly in the 10 second video Elon Musk tweeted as "Live video from LZ-1," but you can also see it 33:35 into the entire launch video. However, the lighting is deceptive in both video.The buckling probably happened upon contact with the ground, the relight for landing, or max-Q upon re-entry. The landing seemed pretty gentle, but the landing relight would have had the highest structural loads from the thrust do the the reduced propellant mass. However if max-Q occurred during the re-entry burn, the re-entry loads could have exceeded the landing burn. The thrust and aerodynamic drag would be summed to produce the force the structure was subjected to. It all depends on how high they were during the re-entry burn, how rarified the atmosphere was, and how fast they were going. I'm not sure how SpaceX have the octoweb seated in the aluminum core, but clearly the access holes they usually place at the base of the aluminum core are a weak spot (if the ocotweb supports the aluminum core that low). The buckling is why I don't think they will re-fly the stage, which violates their previously stated plans. How could they strengthen the base of the stage? Thicken the aluminum? Add internal struts? Create vertically spread internal attachment points for the Octoweb or front bulkhead? Can anyone make out if the buckling had occured prior to landing form the helo video?
Quote from: meekGee on 12/22/2015 06:04 pmClassic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.
Classic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.
And Arianespace workers don't worry because they are quasi-government -- same reason NASA workers don't worry.
Quote from: rpapo on 12/23/2015 01:21 pmQuote from: gospacex on 12/23/2015 01:20 pmHalf of russian space forum members are still in denial Why would they be? The original proposal for the flight path the Falcon stage took was a Russian one. We don't know if Musk, or his staff, ever saw that, though.It would be quite surprising if they hadn't. The F9 return trajectory with the 3 burns is practically identical to the Russian scheme.
Quote from: gospacex on 12/23/2015 01:20 pmHalf of russian space forum members are still in denial Why would they be? The original proposal for the flight path the Falcon stage took was a Russian one. We don't know if Musk, or his staff, ever saw that, though.
Half of russian space forum members are still in denial
It would be quite surprising if they hadn't. The F9 return trajectory with the 3 burns is practically identical to the Russian scheme.
Quote from: Kabloona on 12/23/2015 02:44 pmQuote from: rpapo on 12/23/2015 01:21 pmQuote from: gospacex on 12/23/2015 01:20 pmHalf of russian space forum members are still in denial Why would they be? The original proposal for the flight path the Falcon stage took was a Russian one. We don't know if Musk, or his staff, ever saw that, though.It would be quite surprising if they hadn't. The F9 return trajectory with the 3 burns is practically identical to the Russian scheme.Link?
It doesn't seem impossible to me that someone could come up with this independently.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/23/2015 02:31 pmAnd Arianespace workers don't worry because they are quasi-government -- same reason NASA workers don't worry.You might want to reconsider that line. Arianespace workers are not quasi-government, they are company employees who can be hired, fired and laid off just like any other commercial employee. NASA civil servants aren't guaranteed a job for life, and NASA contractors definitely get nervous around contract expiration time.
sorry, but do you know what it takes for a company to fire an employee in France? I concede your other points.
Quote from: inventodoc on 12/23/2015 03:20 pmsorry, but do you know what it takes for a company to fire an employee in France? I concede your other points.No, I don't. But I do know that Arianespace isn't just a French company. There's partners in nine other countries that help make up the consortium.