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

[Comga]

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.

[OxCartMark]

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.

[Chris Bergin]

No. OG-2 is to the ASDS.

[WindyCity]

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.

[Kansan52]

I'm in the 'Pro-reuse' camp. And if it survives, any number of museums would love to have it.

[Jakusb]

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.

[mtakala24]

Any thoughts about the eventual launch time in GMT/UTC/EST?

[Galactic Penguin SST]

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.

[Tonioroffo]

Will this be an instant launch window?

[Joaosg]

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

[Tonioroffo]

Sorry, the link points to a page which doesn't format well on  Android.

[tleski]

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/

[DanseMacabre]

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!

[Joaosg]

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)

[tleski]

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.

[philw1776]

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!

[meekGee]

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...

[iamlucky13]

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/

[LastStarFighter]

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.

[nadreck]

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.