Quote from: rpapo on 11/17/2015 10:26 amGiven 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.
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.
FCC application for the barge landing, coordinates would put the support boat in the area shown below. Barge within 10 nautical miles of it. NET date is stated as december 10th.https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=initial&application_seq=68528&RequestTimeout=1000
I will still guess it would be a few hours/days post-launch before a confirmation of the landing would be given though? Unless people could see the stage from the coast?
Quote from: Hywel1995 on 11/18/2015 03:09 pmI will still guess it would be a few hours/days post-launch before a confirmation of the landing would be given though? Unless people could see the stage from the coast?SpaceX gets live low-res/low frame rate video from the barge, no reason they wouldn't announce the landing quickly if it happens.
is it just my feeling or a RTF in December looks increasingly unlikely?
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 11/18/2015 03:22 pmis it just my feeling or a RTF in December looks increasingly unlikely?I am feeling the same way Francesco. I used to buy SpaceX's totally unrealistic timelines, but not so much anymore. When Gwynne said it will be months not a year away from RTF back in July. I knew it would be closer to a year than just a few months, and that is the way it seems to be playing out. First we heard, maybe by the end of September, then October, which quickly became November, then first of Dec, now mid December. Hope for the best, but expect the worst. I hope she flies mid December, 100% successful, landing on the ASDS intact. However, I don't expect that to happen. At this point I'm not really sure if she'll fly in Q1 2016.
At this point the holdup (if there is indeed a holdup) seems to be (based only on the little information on this forum) related to the F9 upgrades rather than the RTF. So I will give Gwynne some slack here.
Quote from: mn on 11/18/2015 05:41 pmAt this point the holdup (if there is indeed a holdup) seems to be (based only on the little information on this forum) related to the F9 upgrades rather than the RTF. So I will give Gwynne some slack here.If so, then perhaps OrbComm-2 was not the proper mission for the RTF?
Quote from: mkent on 11/19/2015 01:54 amQuote from: mn on 11/18/2015 05:41 pmAt this point the holdup (if there is indeed a holdup) seems to be (based only on the little information on this forum) related to the F9 upgrades rather than the RTF. So I will give Gwynne some slack here.If so, then perhaps OrbComm-2 was not the proper mission for the RTF?The next launch was always going to be the new version regardless of which mission was selected. (except Jason 3). And that was so before the failure.
Quote from: mn on 11/19/2015 02:01 amQuote from: mkent on 11/19/2015 01:54 amQuote from: mn on 11/18/2015 05:41 pmAt this point the holdup (if there is indeed a holdup) seems to be (based only on the little information on this forum) related to the F9 upgrades rather than the RTF. So I will give Gwynne some slack here.If so, then perhaps OrbComm-2 was not the proper mission for the RTF?The next launch was always going to be the new version regardless of which mission was selected. (except Jason 3). And that was so before the failure. The longer this drags out the more obvious it is that RTF is a cover for not being ready for FT. SpaceX had a successful, profitable vehicle with F9 v1.1. They could have decided to build 5 or 10 more v1.1 models and generate revenue while they actually got FT through testing. They need to evolved past the basic start up and constant tinkering. Germany in WW 2 is a good exampleof chasing perfect design while getting beaten by good enough. (I know there is more to it than this, but I think this is a good example.)There are no small tweaks in rocketry.
SpaceX can drag this out as long as they like. They want to get it right. They are allowed to take the time necessary to get it right. They need FT for better reusability. Staying with 1.1 for longer doesn't really help that.
Quote from: JamesH on 11/19/2015 08:32 amSpaceX can drag this out as long as they like. They want to get it right. They are allowed to take the time necessary to get it right. They need FT for better reusability. Staying with 1.1 for longer doesn't really help that.Not if there contracts say otherwise.CRS and Orbcomm missions don't need FT. 1.1 is fine for them.They signed contracts and need to put payloads into orbit. They can play with FT on their own time.
Are you saying that the decision they made to allocate those customers to FT was wrong from today's perspective? I imagine that decision was made with full agreement of the customers and within the confines of the contracts signed.