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

[Robotbeat]

...they did full duration test burns on some of the early Falcon 9s. Since then, qualification burns.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Any news?

[Chris Bergin]

Any news?

No, which means the "done with testing" full duration burn is yet to come (unless it happened over the weekend....been away, but haven't received any notes).

[OnWithTheShow]

So what was the Monday ~3 min test?

[Jarnis]

Could have easily been a full duration test which, after analysis got a grade of "fail, gotta do this again after fixes".

[guckyfan]

Could have easily been a full duration test which, after analysis got a grade of "fail, gotta do this again after fixes".

That test was confirmed by Orbcomm. So it must have happened and they were not completely happy with it.

[edkyle99]

That test was confirmed by Orbcomm. So it must have happened and they were not completely happy with it.

Or maybe they were happy with it, but didn't make an announcement.  It has happened before.

 - Ed Kyle

[Chris Bergin]

That test was confirmed by Orbcomm. So it must have happened and they were not completely happy with it.

Or maybe they were happy with it, but didn't make an announcement.  It has happened before.

 - Ed Kyle

I was told by SpaceX they would provide notice, but that it wouldn't be immediately after such a test, given they - as per usual - need to conduct a data review from the test, etc. A potential benchmark to use per a public announcement (as opposed to a media notice) would be the youtube video they published of the 15 second firing, which came about four days after it had occurred.

The Stage was still on the test stand and being worked on last we saw (photos) so the test the Orbcomm CEO tweeted about on November 9 - and the lack of any news since - suggests that test wasn't the "Ok, all good to send this stage to Florida" test complete.

Of course, we don't know. This flow is pretty unique in that it's an upgraded core, it's for RTF and that all results in SpaceX not being all that chatty about things (understandably - and why they aren't talking about Mars and such which would have normally been "pending" right now, had CRS-7 not failed).

This test milestone requires an official statement. If I get one, I'll be posting immediately in the open forum.

[Darga]

Looks like we have Boat and Barge locations for something here...kinda confusing seeing as they are on two separate coasts. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=initial&application_seq=68528&RequestTimeout=1000 I started a map with the assumption that they are two separate landing areas for two missions. https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zXmjsQgIEPtk.kEXviMLLYGIk

[Kabloona]

Someone maybe did a copy and paste job from the previous VAFB request and forgot to change the barge coordinates back to the East Coast.

Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
Experimental first-stage recovery operation, following launch from Cape Canaveral.This STA request is similar to 0669-EX-ST-2015, which covered similar operations out of Vandenberg, scheduled for earlier this year.

[Darga]

Someone maybe did a copy and paste job from the previous VAFB request and forgot to change the barge coordinates back to the East Coast.

Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
Experimental first-stage recovery operation, following launch from Cape Canaveral.This STA request is similar to 0669-EX-ST-2015, which covered similar operations out of Vandenberg, scheduled for earlier this year.

Could it be a blanket statement for 6mo for all the landing operations? Might make sense to do that instead of apply for each and every launch attempt. This document seems to apply only to the landing operations not launch which it states is covered by another document. Just spitballing here.

[Kabloona]

Could it be a blanket statement for 6mo for all the landing operations? Might make sense to do that instead of apply for each and every launch attempt. This document seems to apply only to the landing operations not launch which it states is covered by another document. Just spitballing here.

No, because there would be two support boat locations and two barge locations listed, one pair per coast. What's there on the application is only one support boat location and one barge location as per usual for a single launch op, and the text mentions only a Cape mission.

So I still favor the "cut and paste error" theory. Someone retyped the template from the previous VAFB application and forgot to change the barge coordinates back to the Cape.

[Blizzzard]

Given the limits on azimuth from the Cape, it looks to me like that landing location would call for a significant sideways element in the boost-back.  For that matter, it looks like a lot more boost-back than we have seen so far.

Probably calmer waters, though, and it won't take so long to get the ASDS out there.

I was going to ask, how much closer to land is this than the last ASDS landing attempt? Seems like this will give a better chance for a successful, shorter recovery. On the flip-side though you're asking more of the first stage - a worthy test though, this may be one of the last attempts before a land landing.

Edit - Incorrectly posted in Updates so I posted here instead.

[feynmanrules]

Given the limits on azimuth from the Cape, it looks to me like that landing location would call for a significant sideways element in the boost-back.  For that matter, it looks like a lot more boost-back than we have seen so far.

Probably calmer waters, though, and it won't take so long to get the ASDS out there.

interesting observation, thank you.

does anyone have a ballpark on how 30% more thrust to leo plays out in general- fuel or distance wise?  or if somebody can envelope it for this flight specifically that would be even more awesome.

separately i'm guessing that their goal- for safety reasons- will remain to expend almost all fuel prior to next barge bingo attempt.    too much of a leap to infer they don't yet have enough thrust to do full RTLS?   

no idea here just wanting to keep the convo trucking till dec10.   (if it's been this long for me, imagine how it's been for spx staff).

[Kabloona]

Given the limits on azimuth from the Cape, it looks to me like that landing location would call for a significant sideways element in the boost-back.  For that matter, it looks like a lot more boost-back than we have seen so far.

Probably calmer waters, though, and it won't take so long to get the ASDS out there.

interesting observation, thank you.

does anyone have a ballpark on how 30% more thrust to leo plays out in general- fuel or distance wise?  or if somebody can envelope it for this flight specifically that would be even more awesome.

For the M1D it's a thrust increase from "80%" to "100%", so it's not 30% more thrust.

The 30% performance improvement figure originally quoted by SpaceX (and now it seems to have been upped 33%) probably means 33% more payload to a given orbit, based on the thrust upgrade and the additional S2 propellant, though I don't know if SpaceX has said that's to GTO or to LEO. I'm guessing it's 33% more payload to LEO and somewhat less of an improvement to GTO.

On that subject, the following article has a good summary of the design changes that will improve performance of the "full thrust" F9.

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=86711

[Kabloona]

  too much of a leap to infer they don't yet have enough thrust to do full RTLS?   

I think you mean "enough residual propellant," not "enough thrust," and they can attempt RTLS on any mission that has sufficient performance margin. IIRC Elon said some time ago that RTLS will require 10-15% or so of stage 1 propellant. Someone else may have a more current figure.

Orbcomm is probably one of the missions they would attempt RTLS on if they had approval, if LC-13 is squared away.

[Hywel1995]

the unofficial SpaceX group page on Facebook has a picture with no stage on the test stand, ether it has been shipped or being further inspected.

[DatUser14]

The image posted on the SpaceX FB group. Image taken by Keith Wallace

[MarekCyzio]

That test was confirmed by Orbcomm. So it must have happened and they were not completely happy with it.

Or maybe they were happy with it, but didn't make an announcement.  It has happened before.

 - Ed Kyle

Or maybe they did not know at the time if they were happy or not as it required removal and borescope inspection of the engines?  And maybe they are happy now and we should expect a video soon?

[Mike_1179]

Or work is needed where access is easier when horizontal.