-
#940
by
Kabloona
on 12 Dec, 2015 16:19
-
To avoid more clutter of this thread, please take all future arguments for why SpaceX should/could/would add uplink capability to the first stage for in-flight landing retargeting to this new thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39011.0This subject has nothing to do with OBCOMM/RTF mission.
-
#941
by
rcoppola
on 12 Dec, 2015 16:44
-
Any speculation about the changes to the landing legs? Looks like the stowed attachment point is different, and there are dual protrusions along each side...
The dual protrusions that help keep the legs stowed against the stage on each side of the legs have always been there. The fairing caps at the tip of the legs look a bit chunkier. Hard to tell from this angle but are probably the result of extruding the only part that actually touches ground.
Edit: If you're also referring to where the tip of the legs attach to the stage, I think that's a result of the forced perspective of the picture. It looks to be about the same distance up the stage. Typically they end about where the C in SpaceX is painted. It looks further up but again the perspective of the picture make it hard to judge.
-
#942
by
oiorionsbelt
on 12 Dec, 2015 18:13
-
The FTS is moving to an autonomous system and it won't use receivers.
Interesting.
-
#943
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 12 Dec, 2015 18:33
-
I was told by a guy working on the RTF booster that the fairing in front of the grid fins isn't being used.
-
#944
by
Jim
on 12 Dec, 2015 19:51
-
The FTS is moving to an autonomous system and it won't use receivers.
Interesting.
That is a range initiative and not Spacex
-
#945
by
Arb
on 12 Dec, 2015 19:53
-
Anyone know what the yellow pyramid is used for?
-
#946
by
russianhalo117
on 12 Dec, 2015 19:58
-
Anyone know what the yellow pyramid is used for?
looks like a uline do not do not double stack warning placard for the top of a loaded pallet.
-
#947
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 12 Dec, 2015 20:45
-
Anyone know what the yellow pyramid is used for?
Funny - I was wondering same thing. Looks like an ant trap (but I know it's not...)
-
#948
by
Arb
on 12 Dec, 2015 21:49
-
Anyone know what the yellow pyramid is used for?
looks like a uline do not do not double stack warning placard for the top of a loaded pallet.
So it is (
http://www.uline.com/BL_2156/Pallet-Cones).
Many thanks.
-
#949
by
Lars-J
on 13 Dec, 2015 00:49
-
Any speculation about the changes to the landing legs? Looks like the stowed attachment point is different, and there are dual protrusions along each side...
No, the legs look the same as before.
-
#950
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Dec, 2015 14:10
-
ORBCOMM mission overview video (just tweeted - but looks like a previous SpaceX video):
-
#951
by
Roy_H
on 14 Dec, 2015 16:57
-
The FTS is moving to an autonomous system and it won't use receivers.
Interesting.
That is a range initiative and not Spacex
I am surprised to hear that. I was so sure it was initiated by SpaceX, although obviously would have to be approved by Range. Actually I thought it might not be approved and only used at Boca Chica.
-
#952
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 14 Dec, 2015 17:18
-
The FTS is moving to an autonomous system and it won't use receivers.
Interesting.
That is a range initiative and not Spacex
I am surprised to hear that. I was so sure it was initiated by SpaceX, although obviously would have to be approved by Range. Actually I thought it might not be approved and only used at Boca Chica.
The hardware is already existing and qualified since 2013. This was a AF ORS project called AFSS (Automated Flight Safety System).
http://ors.csd.disa.mil/media/AFSS_Factsheet_A001%20final.pdf
-
#953
by
Kabloona
on 14 Dec, 2015 17:25
-
The FTS is moving to an autonomous system and it won't use receivers.
Interesting.
That is a range initiative and not Spacex
I am surprised to hear that. I was so sure it was initiated by SpaceX, although obviously would have to be approved by Range. Actually I thought it might not be approved and only used at Boca Chica.
The hardware is already existing and qualified since 2013. This was a AF ORS project called AFSS (Automated Flight Safety System).
http://ors.csd.disa.mil/media/AFSS_Factsheet_A001%20final.pdf
The hardware exists but hasn't been fully implemented. There is still a MFCO in the loop. Eventually the idea is to transition to the point that the AFSS can automatically issue the destruct signal with no human in the loop. See graphic on page 13 of link below.
https://www.aiaa.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=7550
-
#954
by
Jim
on 14 Dec, 2015 18:57
-
I am surprised to hear that. I was so sure it was initiated by SpaceX, although obviously would have to be approved by Range. Actually I thought it might not be approved and only used at Boca Chica.
The FAA uses the same rules as the Range and so there wouldn't be any differences between FL and TX
-
#955
by
Mike_1179
on 15 Dec, 2015 09:18
-
From the Update thread
ORBCOMM OG2 Mission 2 Launch Update (From Orbcomm)
SpaceX has integrated the two stages of the Falcon 9 rocket and encapsulated the fairing around the satellite stack. The encapsulated fairing is targeted to be mated to the Falcon 9 early tomorrow (Tuesday, December 15). SpaceX is currently aiming for a static fire of the Falcon 9 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Wednesday, December 16.
Has SpaceX had the payload attached for previous hot fires? Looking at pictures from DSCOVR in January and TurkmenAlem52E/MonacoSat back in April, the payload isn't there. The Jason-3 thread also notes that the payload is getting attached now, several weeks before launch.
Why the change? What benefit is there to earlier payload attachment? Why would you change the order of that operation if you have to wheel the vehicle back into the HIF after a hot fire anyway.
-
#956
by
Hauerg
on 15 Dec, 2015 10:09
-
Either to simply minimize the time between hotfire and launch or to get additional data becaus hotfire is now representative for the whole stack?
Or both?
-
#957
by
Kabloona
on 15 Dec, 2015 10:35
-
Why would you change the order of that operation if you have to wheel the vehicle back into the HIF after a hot fire anyway.
Maybe not going back to the HIF this time? That's one way to speed up the flow on this and future missions: mate payload, roll out to pad, hot fire, then launch.
-
#958
by
Mike_1179
on 15 Dec, 2015 10:55
-
Why would you change the order of that operation if you have to wheel the vehicle back into the HIF after a hot fire anyway.
Maybe not going back to the HIF this time? That's one way to speed up the flow on this and future missions: mate payload, roll out to pad, hot fire, then launch.
SpaceX has run 3 days from hot fire to launch for the last several missions, no time savings.
-
#959
by
mfck
on 15 Dec, 2015 11:50
-
From the Update thread
ORBCOMM OG2 Mission 2 Launch Update (From Orbcomm)
SpaceX has integrated the two stages of the Falcon 9 rocket and encapsulated the fairing around the satellite stack. The encapsulated fairing is targeted to be mated to the Falcon 9 early tomorrow (Tuesday, December 15). SpaceX is currently aiming for a static fire of the Falcon 9 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Wednesday, December 16.
Has SpaceX had the payload attached for previous hot fires? Looking at pictures from DSCOVR in January and TurkmenAlem52E/MonacoSat back in April, the payload isn't there. The Jason-3 thread also notes that the payload is getting attached now, several weeks before launch.
Why the change? What benefit is there to earlier payload attachment? Why would you change the order of that operation if you have to wheel the vehicle back into the HIF after a hot fire anyway.
Considering it is structurally different stack from 1.1* and the engines would run at 100% instead of usual 85%(?) they may want to see what acoustic environment the payload is experiencing. Just a guess...
Edit:
* stretched S2, new interstage composition, new payload sep. mechanism, maybe more?