Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION (Read 1360664 times)

abaddon · « **Reply #2280 on:** 01/14/2016 03:22 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 01/14/2016 03:15 pm

Or... it's as simple as realizing SES-9 will be delayed by what - 2 weeks? - and so there was a chance to use SLC-40 for the test and in addition get more practice with subcooled propellants. Basically both of the things I speculated about here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38149.msg1473858#msg1473858

Sure, that's possible. I find the (highly correlated) timing of the static fire and the contract award very curious, though. Also, barring some reason (like my speculation), I don't understand why they are rushing to re-fire this stage.

Herb Schaltegger · « **Reply #2281 on:** 01/14/2016 03:22 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 01/14/2016 03:15 pm

Or... it's as simple as realizing SES-9 will be delayed by what - 2 weeks? - and so there was a chance to use SLC-40 for the test and in addition get more practice with subcooled propellants. Basically both of the things I speculated about here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38149.msg1473858#msg1473858

True. But do we know why SES-9 has been delayed? It could be a problem they're working out with changes to the LC-40 GSE, which they'd rather do with the help of the flown core rather than a brand new one.

GalacticIntruder · « **Reply #2282 on:** 01/14/2016 03:22 pm »

Is Mr Musk in FL for CRS? If so, he can accomplish two things while there. Could be time management and PR.

Johnnyhinbos · « **Reply #2283 on:** 01/14/2016 03:23 pm »

Quote from: Mader Levap on 01/14/2016 03:21 pm

Not to mention it goes against word of prophet Elon - he said clearly what he will do. He will not launch this core anywhere. It is impossible. Get over it, extremely unreasonable amazing peoples.

This wouldn't be the same Elon Musk that said that the OC-2 would static fire at SLC-39A, would it?

ugordan · « **Reply #2284 on:** 01/14/2016 03:28 pm »

Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 01/14/2016 03:22 pm

But do we know why SES-9 has been delayed?

If only. My guess based on no data whatsoever would be that the vehicle is late. It could also be what you're suggesting.

Herb Schaltegger · « **Reply #2285 on:** 01/14/2016 03:31 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 01/14/2016 03:28 pm

Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 01/14/2016 03:22 pm
But do we know why SES-9 has been delayed?

If only. My guess based on no data whatsoever would be that the vehicle is late. It could also be what you're suggesting.

Yeah neither is mine. Just typical SpaceX Kremlinology.

ugordan · « **Reply #2286 on:** 01/14/2016 03:35 pm »

If the delay is on the vehicle side, consider that they have a returned core on the ground and it's also the very first v1.1 FT core that's flown. Maybe they saw something that needs to be tweaked in the hardware for the next flight.

AJW · « **Reply #2287 on:** 01/14/2016 04:07 pm »

Quote from: Mader Levap on 01/14/2016 03:21 pm

Not to mention it goes against word of prophet Elon - he said clearly what he will do. He will not launch this core anywhere. It is impossible. Get over it, extremely unreasonable amazing peoples.

Do you get the irony that you are acting the 'amazing people' yourself by insisting that a statement uttered by Musk is somehow gospel? If we have learned anything, it is that Elon continually assesses the situation he is in at the moment and he doesn't fear changing his mind simply because it would go against an earlier comment or because his detractors say something is impossible.

Putting the first stage in a museum sounded great before anybody had ever landed one, but would you have put a SR-71 in a museum after the first flight? Did the Wright Flyer go into a museum after its first flight? The goal here is reusability, not building museum exhibits. Many on this forum claimed adamantly that this stage would be taken apart and studied. I don't think a single forum member expected that it would be on the stand today waiting for a static fire.

If we learn anything from this it should be that Musk doesn't think like the rest of us, so seeing 'Musk', and 'Impossible' in the same sentence always makes me smile a bit.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #2288 on:** 01/14/2016 05:41 pm »

SpaceX said they /probably/ wouldn't fly this stage again. I supremely doubt they will fly it again, but SpaceX did leave the possibility open that it could possibly fly.

macpacheco · « **Reply #2289 on:** 01/14/2016 06:09 pm »

My money is on OG2 stage undergoing multiple static firings. One static fire on LC40 and at least one on LC39.
Then ship it back to TX and do a bunch more static firings.
The theory that the stage might blow up / spit parts into the pad is extremely remote, specially with the static fire being fully monitored and shutting down within a hairline of any serious abnormal readings.
If SpaceX could do two dozen at least 30 seconds long static firings on this stage, it would go a long way towards establishing they have margins for a relaunch, and might help troubleshoot LC39.
A relaunch of this stage is 2 months away minimum.

georgegassaway · « **Reply #2290 on:** 01/14/2016 06:52 pm »

Quote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 03:22 pm

Also, barring some reason (like my speculation), I don't understand why they are rushing to re-fire this stage.

Rush is a relative thing.

They expected to re-fire the first successfully landed stage months ago. But two landing crashes, one launch failure and a 6-month stand-down then RTF really messed that up. So in a sense they are way behind where they hoped to be. So it is very understandable they'd not want to just waste time when they have other options.

Once Musk tweeted "No damage", then I figured, OK, are they gonna roll it out to 39A and test fire it this week? And that was about 2.5 weeks ago when he wrote that. Though it was certainly not clear at the time whether 39A was actually ready to do a test firing, or whatever logistical complications might be involved, So, whatever the reasons for the change in plans to test fire at 39A, to do it at LC-40, they are moving forward.

Why not just let it sit for a few more weeks or months, even if there was room? Really, if there is any inherent flaw in the vehicle or components that would affect reuseability or complicate refurbishment of future vehicles, then they have good reason to find that out as soon as possible. The assembly line is cranking out cores like clockwork, regardless of whether any test firings and further inspections are made.

As long as nothing is done recklessly, the sooner they can complete test firings at the Cape, do a full duration burn at McGregor, and then get it back to Hawthorne for a more thorough inspection (including disassembly, with eyes towards reassembly), the better.

- George Gassaway

dkovacic · « **Reply #2291 on:** 01/14/2016 06:53 pm »

Quote from: GalacticIntruder on 01/14/2016 03:22 pm

Is Mr Musk in FL for CRS? If so, he can accomplish two things while there. Could be time management and PR.

The conference should be held in Houston, so time management is not likely. But I agree that static fire schedule on the same day of CRS-2 announcement is probably PR related.

Hauerg · « **Reply #2292 on:** 01/14/2016 07:58 pm »

@Asstro_Zach twittered about a noise like a very short burn with immediate cutoff some 40 minutes ago.

Johnnyhinbos · « **Reply #2293 on:** 01/14/2016 08:03 pm »

Quote from: Hauerg on 01/14/2016 07:58 pm

@Asstro_Zach twittered about a noise like a very short burn with immediate cutoff some 40 minutes ago.

Ah Astro Zack - I remember meeting him at the QM-1 static fire at Orbital ATK.

(I think there's only one "s" in his handle...)

Roy_H · « **Reply #2294 on:** 01/14/2016 08:23 pm »

Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/14/2016 03:23 pm

Quote from: Mader Levap on 01/14/2016 03:21 pm
Not to mention it goes against word of prophet Elon - he said clearly what he will do. He will not launch this core anywhere. It is impossible. Get over it, extremely unreasonable amazing peoples.
This wouldn't be the same Elon Musk that said that the OC-2 would static fire at SLC-39A, would it?

Are you suggesting that static fire of the stage is the goal? I don't think so. They are just using this stage to test GSE and I fully expect it to return to LC-39A for that purpose. His statement will still be true.

Semmel · « **Reply #2295 on:** 01/14/2016 08:49 pm »

Quote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 03:22 pm

Sure, that's possible. I find the (highly correlated) timing of the static fire and the contract award very curious, though. Also, barring some reason (like my speculation), I don't understand why they are rushing to re-fire this stage.

My guess is, they want to get rid of the stage at the cape. They want to test fire it before removing it. The earlier the test, the earlier the stage can be brought back for disassembly and deep inspection. SES 9 seems to be delayed so they figures they can get rid of the core faster of it is hauled to LC 40. Maybe too simple of an explanation but I will go with it.

DanseMacabre · « **Reply #2296 on:** 01/14/2016 08:54 pm »

Quote from: Semmel on 01/14/2016 08:49 pm

Quote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 03:22 pm
Sure, that's possible. I find the (highly correlated) timing of the static fire and the contract award very curious, though. Also, barring some reason (like my speculation), I don't understand why they are rushing to re-fire this stage.

My guess is, they want to get rid of the stage at the cape. They want to test fire it before removing it. The earlier the test, the earlier the stage can be brought back for disassembly and deep inspection. SES 9 seems to be delayed so they figures they can get rid of the core faster of it is hauled to LC 40. Maybe too simple of an explanation but I will go with it.

Reasoning from Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/40zmj0/rumor_why_the_og2_stage_was_rolled_back_to_lc40/ (sourced)

wolfpack · « **Reply #2297 on:** 01/14/2016 09:34 pm »

What is the value in test-firing prior to destructive inspection of the stage? I would think you'd want to inspect it in the condition that is was immediately post-landing. How can you differentiate test-fire damage from retro-propulsive damage?

abaddon · « **Reply #2298 on:** 01/14/2016 09:37 pm »

They're not going to destroy it...

NovaSilisko · « **Reply #2299 on:** 01/14/2016 09:37 pm »

They've presumably given it a thorough checkout, just not torn it apart. But I think this is more about proving a point.