Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION (Read 1360666 times)

The Roadie · « **Reply #360 on:** 10/27/2015 11:42 pm »

McGregor locals telling us in the Facebook group they heard a three minute firing just now.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #361 on:** 10/28/2015 12:11 am »

Quote from: The Roadie on 10/27/2015 11:42 pm

McGregor locals telling us in the Facebook group they heard a three minute firing just now.

Cool!

We of course have to wait for SpaceX to say anything (like they did with the 15 second firing, with the youtube video).

Edit: No usual word it was the the test we're waiting for, so we will have to wait a little longer for the big milestone.

Bubbinski · « **Reply #362 on:** 10/28/2015 12:23 am »

Three minutes, is that the normal full duration of the test?

SpunkyEnigma · « **Reply #363 on:** 10/28/2015 02:09 am »

Quote from: Bubbinski on 10/28/2015 12:23 am

Three minutes, is that the normal full duration of the test?

That should be close to fuel depletion of the stage. Are you wondering if this was shorter or longer than normal?

Bubbinski · « **Reply #364 on:** 10/28/2015 02:14 am »

Yes, I was wondering if this was the normal firing duration that it was supposed to be. Hoping all went well!

Lars-J · « **Reply #365 on:** 10/28/2015 04:32 am »

Quote from: Bubbinski on 10/28/2015 12:23 am

Three minutes, is that the normal full duration of the test?

Yes. The F9v1.1 first stage usually burns just short of 3 minutes (depending on margin for boostback/landing), and F9 FT should be very similar.

PreferToLurk · « **Reply #366 on:** 10/28/2015 05:11 am »

Question: What is the latest into the processing flow for this mission that SpaceX can go before they finalize the incident report from CRS-7? The more milestones they pass in the workflow (full duration static fire, for example) the more I wonder how they got this far without already having a finished incident report.

It's not possible that the report has been finalized but not released publicly is it? Could SpaceX wait as long as the Launch Readiness Review to finalize everything?

I'm just trying to get a feel for when to expect the report in relation to the RTF NET launch date. Thanks.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #367 on:** 10/28/2015 12:21 pm »

I might be wrong here but, basically, isn't it the case that basically SpaceX can launch whenever they've got a slot on the range basically at the customer's risk so long as they satisfy range safety that the vehicle isn't a hazard to life? I'm thinking that NASA will want to see the SpX-CRS7 failure report before they use another Dragon for their cargo but it is basically up to the commercial customers if they want to risk using Falcon-9 FT.

Quote from: pospa on 10/27/2015 08:20 am

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/658913128420384768

SpaceX President Shotwell Oct 27 at CASBAA convention: Current target is early Dec for Falcon 9 v1.2 Full Thrust upgrade w/ Orbcomm sats.

Additionally, would I be right in saying that this means SpaceX views early December 2015 is the 'NLT' for this mission rather than the 'NET'?

abaddon · « **Reply #368 on:** 10/28/2015 01:05 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/28/2015 12:21 pm

Additionally, would I be right in saying that this means SpaceX views early December 2015 is the 'NLT' for this mission rather than the 'NET'?

No, that would be ridiculous.

Appable · « **Reply #369 on:** 10/29/2015 02:49 am »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/28/2015 12:21 pm

Additionally, would I be right in saying that this means SpaceX views early December 2015 is the 'NLT' for this mission rather than the 'NET'?

No. Beyond what's already been stated, it's probably a bad idea to set NLTs for a return-to-flight mission and a substantially upgraded version of the rocket. There'squite a bit of risk and additional stress that make it worthwhile for SpaceX to be extremely cautious, and NLTs can cause "go fever."

WHAP · « **Reply #370 on:** 10/29/2015 01:41 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2015 12:11 am

Quote from: The Roadie on 10/27/2015 11:42 pm
McGregor locals telling us in the Facebook group they heard a three minute firing just now.

Cool!

We of course have to wait for SpaceX to say anything (like they did with the 15 second firing, with the youtube video).

Edit: No usual word it was the the test we're waiting for, so we will have to wait a little longer for the big milestone.

What other tests would they run that sounded like a hot fire?

The Roadie · « **Reply #371 on:** 10/29/2015 03:13 pm »

If it was 3 minutes, it could have been a full-duration test on a subset (even one) of the nine engines. Speculation: In case they swapped out some component or engine after the 15-second test, and didn't want to remove the engine to the vertical single-engine test stand for a long run.

Space Ghost 1962 · « **Reply #372 on:** 10/29/2015 06:45 pm »

Many reasons for not concluding results of a test here. Sometimes you need to understand the results differently than expected, sometimes you might spot an opportunity for improvement. Just lots of things.

This is the time you look closely at things. And also examine past runs and flight history to tell the story of the propulsion system from how it operates alone.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #373 on:** 10/29/2015 07:25 pm »

Quote from: WHAP on 10/29/2015 01:41 pm

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2015 12:11 am
Quote from: The Roadie on 10/27/2015 11:42 pm
McGregor locals telling us in the Facebook group they heard a three minute firing just now.

Cool!

We of course have to wait for SpaceX to say anything (like they did with the 15 second firing, with the youtube video).

Edit: No usual word it was the the test we're waiting for, so we will have to wait a little longer for the big milestone.

What other tests would they run that sounded like a hot fire?

Not sure. Remember, SpaceX isn't providing a running commentary on McGregor testing (they never have), so we're all using locals hearing rumbles, which we then go ask about and check.

Locals hear the rumble for the three minutes this time, but apparently it wasn't the test we're all waiting for as the milestone in RTF.

Because we were expecting the full duration test, a lot of people (myself included) assumed that "should" be (never said it "was") the test in question. When we check we usually get a thumbs up and eventually SpaceX give an official thumbs up (after checking the data....like the Static Fires at the Cape). None of it happened with this one, so it wasn't the test in question.

But it shouldn't be long now.

BrianNH · « **Reply #374 on:** 10/30/2015 01:44 am »

As a_langwich said, I was just answering the question with one possible explanation. It would have been more clear if I had quoted the question. I have no inside information on what is happening.