-
#200
by
yokem55
on 11 Feb, 2017 14:08
-
On a different note: this launch will set a record for the least powerful rocket to be launched from 39A!
I had to check this - And Saturn Ib never did launch from 39a. Only 34, 37, and 39b. That said the F9 does look a little scrawny there.
-
#201
by
abaddon
on 11 Feb, 2017 15:12
-
And Ares-1X launched from 39B, of course... I would imagine that the Falcon9 would be more powerful than a single Shuttle SRB?
-
#202
by
MattMason
on 11 Feb, 2017 15:22
-
And Ares-1X launched from 39B, of course... I would imagine that the Falcon9 would be more powerful than a single Shuttle SRB?
Actually, doesn't look that way. A single STS SRB: 13,800 kN. Falcon 9 FT: 7,607 kN.
Yeah, it's scrawny. But this is a nerd rocket all the way. Always bet on the nerds.
-
#203
by
ShawnGSE
on 11 Feb, 2017 15:30
-
what are the blue cylinders at the bottom of TEL?
shock absorbers for kick back at T-0?
The hydraulic lift cylinders that take the TE from horizontal to vertical.
-
#204
by
rsdavis9
on 11 Feb, 2017 15:31
-
what are the blue cylinders at the bottom of TEL?
shock absorbers for kick back at T-0?
The hydraulic lift cylinders that take the TE from horizontal to vertical.
Thanks.
Do they also absorb the momentum when it falls back at T-0
-
#205
by
Chris Bergin
on 11 Feb, 2017 16:59
-
This test reminds me of the ASDS spotting at Port Canaveral. Surely - between the communities - we must be able to get people with Facebook live out there and get these things streamed?
-
#206
by
Rocket Science
on 11 Feb, 2017 17:09
-
Epic article on the much storied 39
BA Chris G!
Falcon has "big shoes" to fill... Thanks Lar!
-
#207
by
Lar
on 11 Feb, 2017 21:20
-
Epic article on the much storied 39B Chris G! Falcon has "big shoes" to fill...
39B
-
#208
by
Rocket Science
on 11 Feb, 2017 21:23
-
-
#209
by
ShawnGSE
on 11 Feb, 2017 21:27
-
what are the blue cylinders at the bottom of TEL?
shock absorbers for kick back at T-0?
The hydraulic lift cylinders that take the TE from horizontal to vertical.
Thanks.
Do they also absorb the momentum when it falls back at T-0
Absorb is the wrong word. They are the main mechanism that makes it possible. It doesn't just fall.
-
#210
by
DecoLV
on 12 Feb, 2017 00:12
-
The GOX photo seems pretty convincing to me, so they fueled today. I wonder why they chose to, in effect, recycle until Sunday. Does NOT necessarily mean a real issue...but I wonder if they found an unexpected diff, relative to SLC-40 or Vandy. What might be different with this config?
-
#211
by
Bob Shaw
on 12 Feb, 2017 00:15
-
On a different note: this launch will set a record for the least powerful rocket to be launched from 39A!
I had to check this - And Saturn Ib never did launch from 39a. Only 34, 37, and 39b. That said the F9 does look a little scrawny there.
Less scrawny than Aries 1-X!
-
#212
by
edkyle99
on 12 Feb, 2017 00:22
-
On a different note: this launch will set a record for the least powerful rocket to be launched from 39A!
I had to check this - And Saturn Ib never did launch from 39a. Only 34, 37, and 39b. That said the F9 does look a little scrawny there.
Less scrawny than Aries 1-X!
Ares I-X went from LC 39B. Correct that Ares I-X weighed more, and produced more liftoff thrust, than Falcon 9 v1.2. It will be another story when Falcon Heavy flies, of course.
- Ed Kyle
-
#213
by
Rocket Rancher
on 12 Feb, 2017 12:19
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
-
#214
by
vanoord
on 12 Feb, 2017 12:27
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
A rush? I don't think we're particularly seeing a rush during the testing of the new pad and hardware - witness the delays, which are surely indicative of caution rather than cutting corners?
If the strongback had technical issues, that's not surprising - it's a new, complicated bit of equipment built to a new design. Certainly better to find any issues now rather than when it's used for a launch.
From yesterday's photos, it looks like there was venting yesterday morning, again indicative of incremental testing ahead of the static fire.
-
#215
by
rockets4life97
on 12 Feb, 2017 12:28
-
In my view, it is quite the contrary. SpaceX has been willing to let the date slip more than a month and change the first payload to launch to give themselves the time needed.
-
#216
by
Rocket Rancher
on 12 Feb, 2017 12:38
-
Then why risk flight hardware for pad checkout system validation/checkout The GSE is a complex set of systems that can be test individually but until they are all integrated and operated together, functioning as one and interacting with hardware, you do not know how the system will behave or respond. X has several used pieces of hardware that would be perfect to perform as a pathfinder article. It just seems like NASA is willing to take the risk with their vehicle to get this mission underway.
-
#217
by
rockets4life97
on 12 Feb, 2017 12:42
-
You seem confused. This isn't a NASA vehicle. It is SpaceX's vehicle and SpaceX's pad.
What evidence do you have that the GSE system has been tested individually and together? Why would a used booster be any different than a new one?
-
#218
by
ShawnGSE
on 12 Feb, 2017 12:47
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
This is the way it has always been done. 40 for Orbcomm 2, Vandy for Iridium, and now 39A for CRS-10 all were significant rebuilds/upgrades tested and proved out with flight hardware it was about to launch. There are always bugs and gremlins to chase, but it's still a pretty safe process.
-
#219
by
vanoord
on 12 Feb, 2017 12:59
-
Then why risk flight hardware for pad checkout system validation/checkout The GSE is a complex set of systems that can be test individually but until they are all integrated and operated together, functioning as one and interacting with hardware, you do not know how the system will behave or respond. X has several used pieces of hardware that would be perfect to perform as a pathfinder article. It just seems like NASA is willing to take the risk with their vehicle to get this mission underway.
Presumably the only way there would be a saving would be *if* the value of a 'flight-proven' F9 was less than a new one; and *if* something goes horribly wrong and they lose the vehicle and damage the pad - in which case the difference in cost is going to be pretty irrelevant.
There's probably also an argument that a new F9 which has already been fired at McGregor may be a slightly more known quantity than a refurbished one, which *could* have an undetected defect arising from its previous use.
Falcon has "big shoes" to fill... Thanks Lar! 
