-
#980
by
Jim
on 17 Dec, 2015 13:59
-
...Shows that its docked at Coast Guard Station Port Canaveral (CG sign, 2 CG RHIBs). Any theories on why that spot may have been chosen?
Because it is available? It isn't at the station, it is next to it.
So what if I speculated that Go Quest's presence there was to brief the CG people that will be running the security zone on how this rocket differs from the rockets they are used to (its a boomarang) and coordinating how they'll work together on game day? Mariner to mariner talk.
No, the Coast Guard just clears out the zone. The Coast Guard supports the range and the range is the one that provides the direction. Not the customer.
-
#981
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 17 Dec, 2015 15:10
-
Full res image:
I'm fairly sure that's the current booster, an ACS pod is at the new location.
Agree. Plus the grid fins don't appear to have the aero fairings, which has been stated by a SpaceX tech as not being on this bird.
-
#982
by
Dante80
on 17 Dec, 2015 15:16
-
Any idea about apparent differences in size or details except for the fins when compared to v1.1?
-
#983
by
edkyle99
on 17 Dec, 2015 15:24
-
F9-21 is slightly taller from the base of the interstage up. The overall stretch is noticeable, but barely because I think it is less than two feet somewhere around maybe 3-4 feet give or take - compared to the 12 foot stage diameter.
- Ed Kyle
-
#984
by
abaddon
on 17 Dec, 2015 15:27
-
Anyone know if they had to make any accommodations for the stretch on the TEL? I guess alternatively they built in a little margin when it was originally assembled, or it's too small of a stretch to matter.
-
#985
by
edkyle99
on 17 Dec, 2015 15:33
-
Anyone know if they had to make any accommodations for the stretch on the TEL? I guess alternatively they built in a little margin when it was originally assembled, or it's too small of a stretch to matter.
They modified the TEL near the top. One of the truss sections was lengthened a bit.
- Ed Kyle
-
#986
by
Dante80
on 17 Dec, 2015 16:13
-
That's a very cool observation. It seems like in the original TEL, the truss section in question was (deliberately?) shorter than the other ones. It now seems to be the same size.
-
#987
by
tleski
on 17 Dec, 2015 16:25
-
That's a very cool observation. It seems like in the original TEL, the truss section in question was (deliberately?) shorter than the other ones. It now seems to be the same size.
As far as I can see this shorter section has a different structure and possibly is a stretchable part of the tower that allows for flexibility and adjustment to the length of the rocket. Am I completely wrong?
-
#988
by
sojourner
on 17 Dec, 2015 16:40
-
Has there been any confirmation on RTLS?
-
#989
by
Lars-J
on 17 Dec, 2015 17:23
-
F9-21 is slightly taller from the base of the interstage up. The overall stretch is noticeable, but barely because I think it is less than two feet somewhere around maybe 3-4 feet give or take - compared to the 12 foot stage diameter.
- Ed Kyle
Isn't this F9-20, not 21? I guess it depends if you mean manufacturing order or launch order.
-
#990
by
ethan829
on 17 Dec, 2015 17:23
-
Has there been any confirmation on RTLS?
Still no word on FAA approval, but keep in mind that the final decision will likely be made
much closer to the launch.
-
#991
by
edkyle99
on 17 Dec, 2015 17:49
-
Isn't this F9-20, not 21? I guess it depends if you mean manufacturing order or launch order.
It is 21 in production sequence as best I can determine, and the first Full Thrust version. No. 20 launched (tried to launch) CRS-7. No. 19 will launch Jason.
- Ed Kyle
-
#992
by
ethan829
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:13
-
-
#993
by
enzo
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:35
-
Ok, so the issue is cryo/tanking related. Could someone explain why this issue wasn't apparent during testing in TX. Wouldn't it be logical to use a similar setup at the test stand as at LC-40, to avoid surprises at the Cape?
-
#994
by
ngilmore
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:38
-
-
#995
by
cscott
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:49
-
On an operational rocket, he means. NASA built a test plant and even a mock stage IIRC, so the basic idea was vetted. Always a surprising distance between theory and practice, of course.
EDIT: and the Russians apparently used supercooled LOX on an upper stage... just not *as* cooled, apparently.
-
#996
by
Jim
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:51
-
Ok, so the issue is cryo/tanking related. Could someone explain why this issue wasn't apparent during testing in TX. Wouldn't it be logical to use a similar setup at the test stand as at LC-40, to avoid surprises at the Cape?
No, Because there are unavoidable differences between the sites
-
#997
by
cscott
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:54
-
Yeah, I'm sure things are as similar as possible. That doesn't mean *identical*, and that's of course where the bugs creep in.
-
#998
by
rcoppola
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:56
-
Could this be a pumping issue? Or a pressurization issue? Perhaps a TEL connection issue with the -340 LOX?
-
#999
by
Sesquipedalian
on 18 Dec, 2015 00:59
-
Yes.
