-
#2420
by
JamesH
on 21 Jan, 2016 14:55
-
The Dragon qualification unit didn't need the roll corrected, so they didn't correct the roll. I'm not sure they even would have had the second stage correct the roll if it was a real Dragon.. they'd just leave it to the Dragon's thrusters to correct. Not sure how you could qualify that as a failure. Seems like nitpicking.
What says a Dragon or another spacecraft could have separated cleanly?
Conversely, what's to say it couldn't. Irrelevant anyway, since all Dragon seps since then have been fine AFAIK, but you cannot say whether something would or would not have happened for this flight, since it wasn't actually tested.
-
#2421
by
Garrett
on 21 Jan, 2016 15:03
-
No, the first F9 launch was a failure. Uncontrolled roll at the end of the flight
The Dragon qualification unit didn't need the roll corrected, so they didn't correct the roll. I'm not sure they even would have had the second stage correct the roll if it was a real Dragon.. they'd just leave it to the Dragon's thrusters to correct. Not sure how you could qualify that as a failure. Seems like nitpicking.
IIRC, the Merlin Vac turbo exhaust, which was meant to control roll, got stuck (i.e. it's gimballing mechanism failed).
A Dragon would have been able to correct the second stage roll failure, but it could have had more serious consequences for a satellite.
-
#2422
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 21 Jan, 2016 15:19
-
No, the first F9 launch was a failure. Uncontrolled roll at the end of the flight
The Dragon qualification unit didn't need the roll corrected, so they didn't correct the roll. I'm not sure they even would have had the second stage correct the roll if it was a real Dragon.. they'd just leave it to the Dragon's thrusters to correct. Not sure how you could qualify that as a failure. Seems like nitpicking.
IIRC, the Merlin Vac turbo exhaust, which was meant to control roll, got stuck (i.e. it's gimballing mechanism failed).
A Dragon would have been able to correct the second stage roll failure, but it could have had more serious consequences for a satellite.
Maybe. Depends on whether the roll had any wobble to it, and whether that roll would turn into a wobble for the Dragon during separation ... Unless you know the moments of inertia for the stage/payload combo and the Dragon, as well as details about the roll, you don't know that for sure.
Which was Jim's point.
-
#2423
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Jan, 2016 15:30
-
Remember this thread is about the OG2 mission.
-
#2424
by
Flying Beaver
on 07 Feb, 2016 18:40
-
-
#2425
by
JFARNS
on 07 Feb, 2016 20:09
-
Satflare.com is reporting that ORBCOMM FM115 (one of the 11 launched in December) is expected to decay sometime around February 25th.
http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=41186&sid=2#TOP
Any idea what's going on here?
Could that be the mass simulator? Or the rack?
-
#2426
by
saliva_sweet
on 07 Feb, 2016 20:28
-
-
#2427
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 07 Feb, 2016 21:28
-
Nothing related to the recent Orbcomm launch on the current Space-Track.org reentry predictions.
-
#2428
by
jaufgang
on 13 Feb, 2016 03:39
-
-
#2429
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 13 Feb, 2016 05:52
-
Thanks jaufgang. Here's the photo for NSF posterity. :-)
The large swirling flame might be from the exhaust of the turbopump.
-
#2430
by
Tonioroffo
on 03 Mar, 2016 19:50
-
Any idea where the first stage is now? Any more plans for it?
-
#2431
by
Jarnis
on 04 Mar, 2016 16:48
-
Any idea where the first stage is now? Any more plans for it?
Most likely still in LC-39A hangar. I guess it will be used to test out LC-39A ground side equipment with a static fire soon(tm).
-
#2432
by
cscott
on 04 Mar, 2016 18:01
-
There is a sign with the label "EMPTY" in front of the LC-39A hangar doors. I'll post a picture later. Make of that what you will.
-
#2433
by
gadgetmind
on 04 Mar, 2016 18:10
-
That's probably just to let people know there's no fuel in it so they don't hop in to take it for a spin and hit problems.
-
#2434
by
meekGee
on 05 Mar, 2016 23:36
-
There is a sign with the label "EMPTY" in front of the LC-39A hangar doors. I'll post a picture later. Make of that what you will.
Then the van pulls away, revealing the rest of the sign saying "at least once a week, please" and the garbage can that's underneath it.
-
#2435
by
cscott
on 07 Mar, 2016 20:19
-
There is a sign with the label "EMPTY" in front of the LC-39A hangar doors. I'll post a picture later. Make of that what you will.
Here's the promised picture. Sorry for the camera shake, it's hard to get perfectly clear photos when on a bus.
Photo taken Feb 24, 2016.
-
#2436
by
Kabloona
on 07 Mar, 2016 20:40
-
There is a sign with the label "EMPTY" in front of the LC-39A hangar doors. I'll post a picture later. Make of that what you will.
Here's the promised picture.
That looks like it might be a hazardous materials sign to show firefighters, etc, what hazardous materials (ordnance, propellants, etc) are inside.
So the building may be "empty" of hazardous materials while still containing an inert stage.
-
#2437
by
PerW
on 09 Mar, 2016 20:29
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Shotwell: going to the media too soon after a failure is dangerous: the failure’s cause is rarely what you think it is at first. #satshow
-
#2438
by
kona314
on 09 Mar, 2016 21:05
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Shotwell: going to the media too soon after a failure is dangerous: the failure’s cause is rarely what you think it is at first. #satshow
So... What about the collet in the leg that they announced pretty quickly? Did they later discover they were wrong about that?
Or are they just flat out unsure what caused this? Which seems unlikely to me, given that it was unlikely to be successful anyway...
Assuming this is about the recent landing attempt, this raises more questions than it answers.
-
#2439
by
whitelancer64
on 09 Mar, 2016 21:15
-
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Shotwell: going to the media too soon after a failure is dangerous: the failure’s cause is rarely what you think it is at first. #satshow
So... What about the collet in the leg that they announced pretty quickly? Did they later discover they were wrong about that?
Or are they just flat out unsure what caused this? Which seems unlikely to me, given that it was unlikely to be successful anyway...
Assuming this is about the recent landing attempt, this raises more questions than it answers.
Based on the ... admittedly thin ... context from Jeff's tweets, I would guess that refers to the CRS-7 failure, not the landing attempt that went kaboom.