-
#580
by
Comga
on 24 Nov, 2015 15:37
-
This discussion is straying from the subject topics of F-9-FT, ORBCOMM-2, and RTF.
There is a Reusable Rocket Section for these discussions.
We are all anxious to learn more about the RTF, so it helps if this thread focuses on that.
-
#581
by
OxCartMark
on 24 Nov, 2015 16:46
-
Here's something less straying.
One of Elon's texts today:
"Jeff maybe unaware SpaceX suborbital VTOL flight began 2013. Orbital water landing 2014. Orbital land landing next."
(My bold)
I assume by next he means this Orbcomm flight.?. And I assume by "land" he means not water landing or ASDS landing. And I assume this will be sufficiently badass to make it worth the trip down there to see.
-
#582
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Nov, 2015 17:03
-
No. OG-2 is to the ASDS.
-
#583
by
WindyCity
on 24 Nov, 2015 23:05
-
An interesting discussion about what SpaceX would do with a recovered booster: store it, reuse it, or donate it to a museum. A question for you experts:
Assuming that a post-flight inspection revealed no damage or disqualifying defects, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of reusing it?
Thoughts that occur to me:
Pro-reuse:
1) Achieve historic first. Enhance the prestige of the company.
2) Prove reusability. Push the rocket to its limits to discover unknown problems.
3) Advance the timetable of development.
Anti-reuse:
1) Rocket more useful as reference sample? Use for test purposes?
2) While not damaged, improvements identified that engineers want to build into new vehicle.
3) Vehicle deemed to have historic value as is and should be preserved.
4) Nothing useful could be gained by flying it again.
5) Thorough post-flight testing would render the vehicle unusable.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
-
#584
by
Kansan52
on 24 Nov, 2015 23:30
-
I'm in the 'Pro-reuse' camp. And if it survives, any number of museums would love to have it.
-
#585
by
Jakusb
on 25 Nov, 2015 08:09
-
An interesting discussion about what SpaceX would do with a recovered booster: store it, reuse it, or donate it to a museum. A question for you experts:
Assuming that a post-flight inspection revealed no damage or disqualifying defects, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of reusing it?
Thoughts that occur to me:
Pro-reuse:
1) Achieve historic first. Enhance the prestige of the company.
2) Prove reusability. Push the rocket to its limits to discover unknown problems.
3) Advance the timetable of development.
Anti-reuse:
1) Rocket more useful as reference sample? Use for test purposes?
2) While not damaged, improvements identified that engineers want to build into new vehicle.
3) Vehicle deemed to have historic value as is and should be preserved.
4) Nothing useful could be gained by flying it again.
5) Thorough post-flight testing would render the vehicle unusable.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I would expect SpX to make one or more test/demo flights. Maybe push it to limits. Possibly destroying it in process. Although media would not understand latter, so maybe not to destruction.
But who knows, maybe they are so confident, they re-fly with actual payload to orbit.
Probably depends heavily on how thorough an inspection can be. How easy it is to ensure the stage would survive another flight (and landing).
To make it short: whatever action they could learn most from and advance the quickest.
Edit: Getting way off topic indeed. Mods please clean if so desired.
-
#586
by
mtakala24
on 25 Nov, 2015 18:20
-
Any thoughts about the eventual launch time in GMT/UTC/EST?
-
#587
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 26 Nov, 2015 14:55
-
Any thoughts about the eventual launch time in GMT/UTC/EST?
According to Ben Cooper, the launch time would be in nighttime if it flies in December - around 2 am EST for December 8 and around midnight at around December 14. The launch time moves forward by 22 minutes per day.
Same for CRS-8 if it flies in January.
-
#588
by
Tonioroffo
on 26 Nov, 2015 15:10
-
Will this be an instant launch window?
-
#589
by
Joaosg
on 26 Nov, 2015 15:36
-
Will this be an instant launch window?
From the article mentioned in the post above yours, it says "at least 1h or so" launch window
-
#590
by
Tonioroffo
on 26 Nov, 2015 18:53
-
Sorry, the link points to a page which doesn't format well on Android.
-
#591
by
tleski
on 26 Nov, 2015 19:42
-
Will this be an instant launch window?
From the article mentioned in the post above yours, it says "at least 1h or so" launch window
Are you sure this is correct? Below is an excerpt from a recent Spaceflight Now article on launch windows for ISS:
"The SpaceX Falcon 9, Russian Soyuz, European Ariane 5 and Japanese H-2B rockets all have instantaneous launch windows for space station missions, giving them a split second each day to fly or else scrub.
The now-retired space shuttle had 10 minutes and the Orbital ATK Antares rocket has had between five and 10 minutes."
Here is the link to the full article:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/18/atlas-5-flights-to-station-enjoy-longer-launch-windows/
-
#592
by
DanseMacabre
on 26 Nov, 2015 19:47
-
Will this be an instant launch window?
From the article mentioned in the post above yours, it says "at least 1h or so" launch window
Are you sure this is correct? Below is an excerpt from a recent Spaceflight Now article on launch windows for ISS:
"The SpaceX Falcon 9, Russian Soyuz, European Ariane 5 and Japanese H-2B rockets all have instantaneous launch windows for space station missions, giving them a split second each day to fly or else scrub.
The now-retired space shuttle had 10 minutes and the Orbital ATK Antares rocket has had between five and 10 minutes."
Here is the link to the full article:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/18/atlas-5-flights-to-station-enjoy-longer-launch-windows/
Good thing this launch isn't going to the ISS then!
-
#593
by
Joaosg
on 26 Nov, 2015 21:39
-
Will this be an instant launch window?
From the article mentioned in the post above yours, it says "at least 1h or so" launch window
Are you sure this is correct? Below is an excerpt from a recent Spaceflight Now article on launch windows for ISS:
"The SpaceX Falcon 9, Russian Soyuz, European Ariane 5 and Japanese H-2B rockets all have instantaneous launch windows for space station missions, giving them a split second each day to fly or else scrub.
The now-retired space shuttle had 10 minutes and the Orbital ATK Antares rocket has had between five and 10 minutes."
Here is the link to the full article:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/18/atlas-5-flights-to-station-enjoy-longer-launch-windows/
We are talking about the ORBCOMM-2 launch
(this thread is all about that launch and RFT)
-
#594
by
tleski
on 27 Nov, 2015 13:29
-
We are talking about the ORBCOMM-2 launch (this thread is all about that launch and RFT)
Of course, you are right. I just can't wait for the next flight of the Dragon.
-
#595
by
philw1776
on 27 Nov, 2015 23:26
-
Unlike some other companies, SpaceX is not rushing to put artifacts in museums - they're going for the historical record instead.
The first landed stage will get inspected, and if nothing obvious is found wrong, it will be re-flown.
If it survives a few re-flights, maybe then they'll place it in a museum. Or in their parking lot.
Hey, doesn't Jeff Besos like to collect historically significant space hardware?
Oh, wait!
-
#596
by
meekGee
on 27 Nov, 2015 23:52
-
Unlike some other companies, SpaceX is not rushing to put artifacts in museums - they're going for the historical record instead.
The first landed stage will get inspected, and if nothing obvious is found wrong, it will be re-flown.
If it survives a few re-flights, maybe then they'll place it in a museum. Or in their parking lot.
Hey, doesn't Jeff Besos like to collect historically significant space hardware?
Oh, wait!
Jeff Bezos has his priorities right... He might be a collector, but just like SpaceX he knows that being in a museum comes after the fact... It is a symptom of historical importance, not a cause...
-
#597
by
iamlucky13
on 30 Nov, 2015 21:26
-
-
#598
by
LastStarFighter
on 30 Nov, 2015 21:41
-
I'm not sure if this is the right thread, and I have no idea if this is actually relevant to the strut failure, but given the timing and the extensive list of industries Sapa supplies aluminum to, I thought I'd throw it out there as a possibility that might be worth looking into.
NASA has listed major aluminum supplier Sapa as ineligible for federal contracts due to falsification of quality test results.
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/11/05/portland-aluminum-plant-falsified-test-results-letter-customers-says/75259028/
SpaceX gets their aluminum from a French company named Alcan I beleive.
-
#599
by
nadreck
on 30 Nov, 2015 21:45
-
SpaceX gets their aluminum from a French company named Alcan I beleive.
I have no idea if that is true that SpaceX gets it's aluminum from Alcan, but Alcan was a Canadian company originally but it is now owned by the Australian mining/resource conglomerate Rio Tinto.
(this thread is all about that launch and RFT)
