-
#500
by
Okie_Steve
on 18 Nov, 2015 01:53
-
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.
Looks like it might still be on the contenantal shelf.
-
#501
by
Semmel
on 18 Nov, 2015 09:22
-
looks like it fell over and the crane is sitting on its nose.. seriously though, nice to know its getting somewhere!
Just need the confirmation that the full duration test burn was good
-
#502
by
Hywel1995
on 18 Nov, 2015 15:09
-
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
A question about this from the Updates Thread:
With the barge being closer to shore, would telemetry be directly to the Range/SpaceX? Or is it still below the horizon?
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?
-
#503
by
gongora
on 18 Nov, 2015 15:22
-
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?
SpaceX gets live low-res/low frame rate video from the barge, no reason they wouldn't announce the landing quickly if it happens.
-
#504
by
francesco nicoli
on 18 Nov, 2015 15:22
-
is it just my feeling or a RTF in December looks increasingly unlikely?
-
#505
by
rcoppola
on 18 Nov, 2015 15:24
-
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?
SpaceX gets live low-res/low frame rate video from the barge, no reason they wouldn't announce the landing quickly if it happens.
Yes, and to add some color... Remember we saw them react in realtime from the control room in Hawthorne to the stage landing (excitement) then tipping over (disappointment). In fact, we saw the barge camera feed caught on one of the screens in the control room. They just don't broadcast it.
-
#506
by
ElGuapoGuano1
on 18 Nov, 2015 17:34
-
is 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.
-
#507
by
mn
on 18 Nov, 2015 17:41
-
is 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.
-
#508
by
mkent
on 19 Nov, 2015 01:54
-
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.
If so, then perhaps OrbComm-2 was not the proper mission for the RTF?
-
#509
by
mn
on 19 Nov, 2015 02:01
-
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.
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.
-
#510
by
wannamoonbase
on 19 Nov, 2015 02:13
-
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.
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.
-
#511
by
mme
on 19 Nov, 2015 08:03
-
As Napoleon told his valet after a, um, wardrobe malfunction, "Vísteme despacio que estoy de prisa" (dress me slowly, I am in a hurry.)
-
#512
by
JamesH
on 19 Nov, 2015 08:32
-
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.
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.
ULA tweak their rockets all the time...you never hear about it, because they are small tweaks...constant tinkering in a way. Incremental improvement, happens in every industry.
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.
-
#513
by
Jim
on 19 Nov, 2015 13:39
-
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.
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.
-
#514
by
Jakusb
on 19 Nov, 2015 13:46
-
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.
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.
Come on Jim, your reasoning applies to companies like ULA and maybe Orbital, where their sole mission is profit.
The mission of SpaceX is Mars. Anything in between is a means. Including earnings for putting payload into orbit. Any customer should, and likely will, know that. If not, do not choose SpaceX. As simple as that.
But I guess you know all this already...
-
#515
by
CraigLieb
on 19 Nov, 2015 14:33
-
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.
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.
Or... Are you suggesting that SpaceX should switch to the old-version launch vehicle and stop delaying or burdening the next two customers and/or future customers with their innovations? It seems like switching now for the next two flights would increase delay, increase cost, and/or not even be possible given tooling or process changes made to enable FT construction.
-
#516
by
Jim
on 19 Nov, 2015 14:50
-
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.
Yes, and I really doubt it. Maybe agreement but not full. Much like 1.1 wasn't accepted right away.
-
#517
by
jimbowman
on 19 Nov, 2015 15:01
-
-
#518
by
JamesH
on 19 Nov, 2015 15:06
-
Of course, there is the assumption made here that the delay is down to FT rather than RTF. Although they are rather linked.
Did the next two customers get a discount to go on FT? Should go some way to compensating for the delay, whatever caused it.
Although the launch industry seems to regard delays are SOP anyway.
-
#519
by
rcoppola
on 19 Nov, 2015 15:12
-
While I don't philosophically disagree with Jim on this, what's done is done. There's no going back. They're all in on FT. It was their business decision. They weighed the risks. Risks of delays, customer dissatisfaction, capital expenditures, etc...and they decided to move forward. And then CRS-7 happened to compound the challenges.
They sure do have a high level of risk tolerance. And it seems most of their customers, as of now, have the same. Most of them seem to understand the implications of a successful reusability program. And FT goes right to the heart of it. They, like SpaceX seem to be looking long term on bending that cost curve down further. We'll see just how patient they remain.
So essentially...on with the show. I just hope to hell RTF with FT works as advertised.
Just need the confirmation that the full duration test burn was good