-
#520
by
francesco nicoli
on 19 Nov, 2015 15:59
-
eh?
Sorry, I am definetively not a SX fanboi, but the burden of demonstrating a claim is always on the one who makes the claim. It is nonsense saying "I know this, I don't want to lose time, find the data yourself if you don't agree". You know, our time is precious as well (mine at least). so if you make a claim back it up. If you don't feel like "loosing time" by backing your claims up, then I'd advise to save even more time and not bother to post at all.
-
#521
by
Mike_1179
on 19 Nov, 2015 16:09
-
I'm assuming this is an older test fire photo? Or not?
https://instagram.com/p/-PLfZIQEUv/
Yes, that is on the above-ground "tripod" stand.
The FT is tested on the new, partially underground test stand.
-
#522
by
Coastal Ron
on 19 Nov, 2015 16:17
-
This company (SES) wants their payload launched in a major way!
Fact: several months ago SES listed they were shopping around for another lv to replace the SX contract, they called it insurance. The problem was much of the schedules were filled.
A question for anyone to answer - I thought when commercial payload customer reserved/ordered their primary launch vehicle choice that they also selected a backup provider and made some sort of financial commitment (i.e. non-refundable deposit of some kind)? So that there would be no question who their backup would be in case the primary has problems?
Now obviously their choices become limited as the time gets closer to launch, and their backup has to commit to a primary user. And maybe that is the situation with SES, that all the available launch slots for their backup were already filled.
Just curious.
-
#523
by
rcoppola
on 19 Nov, 2015 16:55
-
eh?
Sorry, I am definetively not a SX fanboi, but the burden of demonstrating a claim is always on the one who makes the claim. It is nonsense saying "I know this, I don't want to lose time, find the data yourself if you don't agree". You know, our time is precious as well (mine at least). so if you make a claim back it up. If you don't feel like "loosing time" by backing your claims up, then I'd advise to save even more time and not bother to post at all.
sorry, it wasn't a wide publication...but this gives you the reasons why
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/ses-results-idUSB5N0ZA01620150724#QoFSkzYxJ27e2KYs.97
It seems clear the delayed launch has had an impact on their revenue & (forecast). But that specifically is listed as only one of many headwinds. Is it ideal? No, of course not. I'm sure nobody is happy with it. They had a failure. They're trying to fix it. They need FT. They're trying to launch it. Did they manage all of this properly? You can easily make the argument that, no, they have not.
They've learned a lot of hard lessons along the way. Sometimes at the expense of others, which is unfortunate. I'm sure they'll learn many more in the years to come. On the flip side, those that are negatively effected today, stand much to gain tomorrow if they are the recipient of a reliable and exceedingly cost efficient launch services provider. It may not be pretty but it's sure a pleasure to watch. And I'm not seeing a mad dash for the exits...
-
#524
by
seawolfe
on 19 Nov, 2015 17:27
-
And how many times did a NASA rocket with or without a payload fail back in the 1960's, '70's and even 80's? Not talking Shuttle here, just other rockets that NASA or the USAF launched and failed, sometime spectacularly.
That cost NASA time and money there too....oh, yeah, 'twas a government agency we're talkin' about, not a private company.
-
#525
by
DanseMacabre
on 19 Nov, 2015 17:43
-
eh?
Sorry, I am definetively not a SX fanboi, but the burden of demonstrating a claim is always on the one who makes the claim. It is nonsense saying "I know this, I don't want to lose time, find the data yourself if you don't agree". You know, our time is precious as well (mine at least). so if you make a claim back it up. If you don't feel like "loosing time" by backing your claims up, then I'd advise to save even more time and not bother to post at all.
sorry, it wasn't a wide publication...but this gives you the reasons why
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/ses-results-idUSB5N0ZA01620150724#QoFSkzYxJ27e2KYs.97
I don't see reference to your "fact" in this source Prober...
-
#526
by
The Roadie
on 19 Nov, 2015 17:50
-
A Falcon 9 stage was just seen on US 27 just east of Tallahassie, according to a post just now in FB Space Hipsters group.
How can it be anything else?
-
#527
by
Joaosg
on 19 Nov, 2015 18:07
-
A Falcon 9 stage was just seen on US 27 just east of Tallahassie, according to a post just now in FB Space Hipsters group.
How can it be anything else?
2 days since core was seen missing from the pad at McGregor are enough to Travel from Texas to Florida?
-
#528
by
Mike_1179
on 19 Nov, 2015 18:18
-
Is a full-duration static fire ever done at a launch site?
For example, lets say they executed a full-duration fire at McGregor but their data said there was something that needed to be changed and a re-test is required. Could you save time by packing up the stage, shipping it to Florida, make the repair in the hangar there, then another full-duration (or 3 second test) fire to verify that the repair was correct?
-
#529
by
ugordan
on 19 Nov, 2015 18:23
-
Is a full-duration static fire ever done at a launch site?
I don't think that would be particularly healthy for the pad hold-downs and the flame trench.
-
#530
by
NovaSilisko
on 19 Nov, 2015 18:26
-
A Falcon 9 stage was just seen on US 27 just east of Tallahassie, according to a post just now in FB Space Hipsters group.
How can it be anything else?
2 days since core was seen missing from the pad at McGregor are enough to Travel from Texas to Florida?
Well, a quick bit of poking around with Google Maps says that the best travel time is around 18 hours from McGregor to the Cape (presumably assuming a car). I think 48 would be plenty to show up where it did.
-
#531
by
neoforce
on 19 Nov, 2015 18:59
-
A Falcon 9 stage was just seen on US 27 just east of Tallahassie, according to a post just now in FB Space Hipsters group.
How can it be anything else?
2 days since core was seen missing from the pad at McGregor are enough to Travel from Texas to Florida?
From facebook, core spotted outside of Tallahassee.
Source link from facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacehipsters/permalink/1011687582209458/
-
#532
by
abaddon
on 19 Nov, 2015 19:43
-
A Falcon 9 stage was just seen on US 27 just east of Tallahassie, according to a post just now in FB Space Hipsters group.
How can it be anything else?
2 days since core was seen missing from the pad at McGregor are enough to Travel from Texas to Florida?
It could have been gone for some time before the photo was taken.
-
#533
by
Chris Bergin
on 19 Nov, 2015 19:44
-
I've asked SpaceX about it. Let's see if they want to be chatty, because if the Stage is in travel, they don't like to advertise such things for security reasons (i.e. screaming SpaceX fans driving next to the truck taking photos and asking the stage for an autograph
)
Let's keep the thread calm, it all got a bit weird when people don't know their test stands!
Small trim to keep it on track.
(We've covered the new stand in articles, no excuses!
)
-
#534
by
Joaosg
on 19 Nov, 2015 20:41
-
-
#535
by
Jarnis
on 19 Nov, 2015 21:08
-
Well, this obviously settles the question if the static fire was a success. They wouldn't have shipped it to Cape without a "pass" from the test.
Seems to me that mid-December launch is definitely plausible. Based on previous turnaround times, 3 weeks is definitely doable, even if this *is* the RTF and they will probably take extra time to make sure everything is just right.
-
#536
by
Jim
on 19 Nov, 2015 21:23
-
On a more serious note, Chris can you talk to anyone on KSC to ask if the stage is expected to arrive in the next days or maybe they could try to take some pictures of the truck when it arrives to the LC40 (probably during the night)
KSC has no role in this mission. It is on the Cape side.
-
#537
by
cscott
on 19 Nov, 2015 21:33
-
As Napoleon told his valet after a, um, wardrobe malfunction, "Vísteme despacio que estoy de prisa" (dress me slowly, I am in a hurry.)
I didn't realize Napoleon spoke Spanish.
-
#538
by
tleski
on 19 Nov, 2015 22:08
-
Well, this obviously settles the question if the static fire was a success. They wouldn't have shipped it to Cape without a "pass" from the test.
Seems to me that mid-December launch is definitely plausible. Based on previous turnaround times, 3 weeks is definitely doable, even if this *is* the RTF and they will probably take extra time to make sure everything is just right.
I don't know how obvious it is. We just have one unconfirmed sighting. I hope it will be confirmed but until then it is just a rumor.
-
#539
by
mme
on 20 Nov, 2015 08:21
-
As Napoleon told his valet after a, um, wardrobe malfunction, "Vísteme despacio que estoy de prisa" (dress me slowly, I am in a hurry.)
I didn't realize Napoleon spoke Spanish.
Absolutely, his valet was from Spain. (OK, that's a lie.) Cut and paste while running unit tests. No idea how I ended up with the Spanish translation. Sloppy execution while multitasking and annoyed at all the so called obvious conclusions based on no data. Most embarrassing.
)
Small trim to keep it on track.
)
