-
#700
by
georgegassaway
on 02 Dec, 2015 20:29
-
Thanks for the replies.
Seems like some major assumptions that article to be correct. I was hoping to see some confirmation from another source that SpaceX truly has changed plans and now wants to land Orbcomm-2 there. Indeed one other article I read starts off citing the Florida Today article, so it's not independent verification (that other one also cites a NASA employee.... but Orbcomm is not a NASA launch so it is not clear to me that NASA employee would know for sure it was THIS flight).
Now, if Chris Bergin said so, I'll believe it.
For now, I'll sort of go with it but I have a nagging feeling it has a bit too much of a speculative/wishful factor versus solid confirmation.
-
#701
by
nadreck
on 02 Dec, 2015 20:30
-
The article is not entirely clear on the first reading but Ed is right as can been seen in the second paragraph when the "next" flight is mentioned within the context of being the RTF.
If the flight after is the SES one, I think that the mission energy requirement precludes RTLS, but I think a barge is still a possibility.
-
#702
by
rcoppola
on 02 Dec, 2015 20:52
-
Thanks for the replies.
Seems like some major assumptions that article to be correct. I was hoping to see some confirmation from another source that SpaceX truly has changed plans and now wants to land Orbcomm-2 there. Indeed one other article I read starts off citing the Florida Today article, so it's not independent verification (that other one also cites a NASA employee.... but Orbcomm is not a NASA launch so it is not clear to me that NASA employee would know for sure it was THIS flight).
Now, if Chris Bergin said so, I'll believe it.
For now, I'll sort of go with it but I have a nagging feeling it has a bit too much of a speculative/wishful factor versus solid confirmation.
Nobody knows for sure. All that has been said is they "hope to" or "would like to". And even if word came down that SpaceX was indeed ready and the FAA & AF Range approved, there's always launch/landing day weather related uncertainties that could approve launch and wave-off pad landing for barge landing or neither. So...it will happen when it happens, regardless of anything anyone confirms. But yes, the confirmation of request and initial approval would still be nice. All in due time.
-
#703
by
georgegassaway
on 02 Dec, 2015 22:36
-
Nobody knows for sure. All that has been said is they "hope to" or "would like to". And even if word came down that SpaceX was indeed ready and the FAA & AF Range approved, there's always launch/landing day weather related uncertainties that could approve launch and wave-off pad landing for barge landing or neither.
Well, I'm talking about what is planned, and not what the weather might disrupt. The weather factor plays into just about every flight of a space launch vehicle in the U.S.(at least since the Atlas Centuar in 1987 that was stuck by lightning).
I was sort of kidding that I'd believe if it Chris Bergin said it, but only to playfully point out that i'm not as sure of the other info out there. By now though, I note his silence on this, so far (even though not lot of time has passed, and I'm not complaining).
I do realize that does not necessarily mean anything one way or another. Could be he's trying to get solid facts together (He's posted before words to the effect about getting it RIGHT being more important than getting it FAST). Or it could be that he has solid info that's embargoed till a certain time or permission is given. Yes, sort of speculation in opposite reasons why Chris hasn't addressed this yet (that I know of as I type this).
But then too much of this RTLS landing of RTF seems speculative being taken as "fact". So I'm surprised that even here there's really no solid info other than people going by what is in one or two articles.....where the key one starts off implying the flight after Orbcomm/RTF.
Regardless, thanks for the replies.
-
#704
by
Coastal Ron
on 02 Dec, 2015 23:23
-
But then too much of this RTLS landing of RTF seems speculative being taken as "fact".
It is a fact that SpaceX wants to do it, and that they have been preparing the capability to do it. The only question is whether everything that SpaceX controls, and everything they don't control, will come together to allow the attempt.
So I'm surprised that even here there's really no solid info other than people going by what is in one or two articles.....where the key one starts off implying the flight after Orbcomm/RTF.
We all crave a perfect view into the future, but not even SpaceX has that at this time - and may not until the just before the flight takes off.
Patience is required at this point...
-
#705
by
cscott
on 02 Dec, 2015 23:32
-
-
#706
by
johnnyhinbos01
on 03 Dec, 2015 00:01
-
-
#707
by
johnnyhinbos01
on 03 Dec, 2015 01:09
-
And finally, on the Twitter-scope...
-
#708
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 03 Dec, 2015 04:01
-
To me, I think the proper procedure before clearance for a land landing is a safe landing on a barge. That has not yet been achieved, indicating that there are still bugs in the system that need to be ironed out. There have also been no attempts at landing the first stage of the new Falcon 9v1.1 Full Thrust first stage. A successful barge landing with the current configuration (v1.1 Full Thrust) would clear the way to attempt a land landing.
-
#709
by
Robotbeat
on 03 Dec, 2015 04:03
-
So, because SpaceX built a barge, they now have to land on it in order to have clearance to land on land. Right.
-
#710
by
Coastal Ron
on 03 Dec, 2015 04:05
-
To me, I think the proper procedure before clearance for a land landing is a safe landing on a barge.
However landing on a barge is far harder than landing on land, and SpaceX has already shown that the most difficult part about landing is horizontal accuracy, which landing on land addresses.
-
#711
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 03 Dec, 2015 04:36
-
So, because SpaceX built a barge, they now have to land on it in order to have clearance to land on land. Right.
That is not what I am arguing.
However landing on a barge is far harder than landing on land, and SpaceX has already shown that the most difficult part about landing is horizontal accuracy, which landing on land addresses.
I am sure that is what SpaceX is trying to argue. The problem is how does the USAF and FAA know that the fixes introduced with the last failed landing work as intended and the changes introduced with v1.1 Full Thrust don't introduce new bugs that effect landing accuracy?
-
#712
by
NovaSilisko
on 03 Dec, 2015 04:40
-
Maybe... we could just wait and see what they actually do?
-
#713
by
mule169
on 03 Dec, 2015 05:41
-
Maybe... we could just wait and see what they actually do?
+1000
-
#714
by
bob_the_sky_watcher
on 03 Dec, 2015 07:53
-
Maybe... we could just wait and see what they actually do?
Well, this IS a discussion thread, isn't it?
-
#715
by
JamesH
on 03 Dec, 2015 08:29
-
...
And of course, FTS would still be there if things goes very badly wrong.
...
If an incoming stage can't stay inside the flight envelope dictated by Range Safety, things have already gone very badly wrong. Whatever agreement Range Safety (and possibly the FAA) come to, it will not depend on the booster that couldn't maintain control being able to control itself. It will be a separate, fail safe system the end result of which can rely on newtonian physics to take it's course and minimize risk to property and life.
Edit/Lar: FAA, not FFA, pretty sure the Future Farmers of America have little say in the process!
As I see it, there are two safe envelopes. There's the envelope that says the booster can land safely whilst inside, there the one where it can land safely, but not at the required destination, ie out to sea, and there's outside both of those which require FTS (ie 'badly wrong')
-
#716
by
MarianoOchoa
on 03 Dec, 2015 12:10
-
It is beginning to be a long week. I am hitting F5 every minute to check if there is news about RTF, if NET date holds. Until now we have:
Rocket at launch site
Orbcom payload at launch site
NET: Dec 15/16
Land Landing (awaiting for FAA aproval)
Sitill dont have a date for hot fire test?
Anything I am missing?
-
#717
by
abaddon
on 03 Dec, 2015 13:31
-
I am sure that is what SpaceX is trying to argue. The problem is how does the USAF and FAA know that the fixes introduced with the last failed landing work as intended and the changes introduced with v1.1 Full Thrust don't introduce new bugs that effect landing accuracy?
That's fine, but in that case, your argument is really that they need to demonstrate previous levels of accuracy targeting the barge with F91.1 FT, not that they need to stick the landing.
-
#718
by
macpacheco
on 03 Dec, 2015 15:33
-
I am hitting F5 every minute to check if there is news about RTF, if NET date holds.
And I thought I was a little messed up for checking 6x a day...
Seems we all have a serious condition called SpaceXitis, its contageous, spreads through physical or online contact...
-
#719
by
Rocket Rancher
on 03 Dec, 2015 16:33
-
What are the launch windows if they try to go next week (15/16)?
