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

[JamesH]

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.

[Garrett]

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.

[Herb Schaltegger]

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. 

[Chris Bergin]

Remember this thread is about the OG2 mission.

[Flying Beaver]

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?

[JFARNS]

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?

[saliva_sweet]

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?

Probably some sort of mistake. It's in a circular orbit at 618 km according to http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=41186
Doesn't look like it's about to fall down.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Nothing related to the recent Orbcomm launch on the current Space-Track.org reentry predictions.

[jaufgang]

SpaceX posted this new photo on Instagram a few hours ago:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBtPIxal8eM/

"Close-up of first stage approaching LZ-1"

[Steven Pietrobon]

Thanks jaufgang. Here's the photo for NSF posterity. :-)

The large swirling flame might be from the exhaust of the turbopump.

[Tonioroffo]

Any idea where the first stage is now?  Any more plans for it?

[Jarnis]

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).

[cscott]

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.

[gadgetmind]

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.

[meekGee]

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.

[cscott]

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.

[Kabloona]

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.

[PerW]

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

[kona314]

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.

[whitelancer64]

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.