Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION (Read 1360656 times)

georgegassaway · « **Reply #700 on:** 12/02/2015 08:29 pm »

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.

nadreck · « **Reply #701 on:** 12/02/2015 08:30 pm »

Quote from: rcoppola on 12/02/2015 07:47 pm

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.

rcoppola · « **Reply #702 on:** 12/02/2015 08:52 pm »

Quote from: georgegassaway on 12/02/2015 08:29 pm

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.

georgegassaway · « **Reply #703 on:** 12/02/2015 10:36 pm »

Quote from: rcoppola on 12/02/2015 08:52 pm

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.

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #704 on:** 12/02/2015 11:23 pm »

Quote from: georgegassaway on 12/02/2015 10:36 pm

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.

Quote

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...

cscott · « **Reply #705 on:** 12/02/2015 11:32 pm »

If you're on L2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38667.msg1451245.msg#1451245
But it's not much more than what's been said above, and in public sources.

johnnyhinbos01 · « **Reply #706 on:** 12/03/2015 12:01 am »

Another bit of reporting pointing to the RTF launch will include a land landing...

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=89127#more-89127

johnnyhinbos01 · « **Reply #707 on:** 12/03/2015 01:09 am »

And finally, on the Twitter-scope...

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #708 on:** 12/03/2015 04:01 am »

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.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #709 on:** 12/03/2015 04:03 am »

So, because SpaceX built a barge, they now have to land on it in order to have clearance to land on land. Right.

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #710 on:** 12/03/2015 04:05 am »

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 12/03/2015 04:01 am

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.

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #711 on:** 12/03/2015 04:36 am »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/03/2015 04:03 am

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.

Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/03/2015 04:05 am

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?

NovaSilisko · « **Reply #712 on:** 12/03/2015 04:40 am »

Maybe... we could just wait and see what they actually do?

mule169 · « **Reply #713 on:** 12/03/2015 05:41 am »

Quote from: NovaSilisko on 12/03/2015 04:40 am

Maybe... we could just wait and see what they actually do?

+1000

bob_the_sky_watcher · « **Reply #714 on:** 12/03/2015 07:53 am »

Quote from: NovaSilisko on 12/03/2015 04:40 am

Maybe... we could just wait and see what they actually do?

Well, this IS a discussion thread, isn't it?

JamesH · « **Reply #715 on:** 12/03/2015 08:29 am »

Quote from: mme on 12/02/2015 04:29 pm

Quote from: JamesH on 12/02/2015 01:16 pm
...
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')

MarianoOchoa · « **Reply #716 on:** 12/03/2015 12:10 pm »

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?

abaddon · « **Reply #717 on:** 12/03/2015 01:31 pm »

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 12/03/2015 04:36 am

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.

macpacheco · « **Reply #718 on:** 12/03/2015 03:33 pm »

Quote from: MarianoOchoa on 12/03/2015 12:10 pm

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...

Rocket Rancher · « **Reply #719 on:** 12/03/2015 04:33 pm »

What are the launch windows if they try to go next week (15/16)?