-
#220
by
Rocket Rancher
on 12 Feb, 2017 13:20
-
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?
Sir, when NASA buys a launch service they will sometimes have oversight into the building of that launch vehicle. Many times it will only be insight. But it is still that specific vehicle they follow that will be used for their mission. NASA has what is like a mini rocket company in the form of the Launch Services Program. This group has all the different disciplines you would find in any rocket company today. The people who work there are mostly direct hires From the business. This is NASA insurance policy for mission success. Their team works with the service provide to ensure that a good product is delivered. Unless something has changed in the last few years, that's how it works. So in a way, it is a NASA vehicle for that mission. They have invested their time and effort in it following its progress to ensure mission success.
You are correct; I have no direct evidence of any systems tests. But lets be real here, no one in there right mind will build a complex system and not perform some type of functional testing once it is assembled. Would you re-build your car's transmission and not take it for a test drive before loading up the family and going on a long trip?
And you are correct, there is no difference between a used or new booster. And that is my point, you are "Testing Like You Fly" by using flight-like hardware in the integrated testing of your GSE. But the difference is in the risk; if I have a valve that sticks open that over-pressurizes the system or if my software does something that I did not anticipate and again damages hardware, I am only out a used booster and not the flight hardware. Any off-nominal event casts a cloud over the hardware and it is very hard to clear that up so everyone is happy.
-
#221
by
Jim
on 12 Feb, 2017 13:30
-
Sir, when NASA buys a launch service they will sometimes have oversight into the building of that launch vehicle. Many times it will only be insight. But it is still that specific vehicle they follow that will be used for their mission. NASA has what is like a mini rocket company in the form of the Launch Services Program. This group has all the different disciplines you would find in any rocket company today. The people who work there are mostly direct hires From the business. This is NASA insurance policy for mission success. Their team works with the service provide to ensure that a good product is delivered. Unless something has changed in the last few years, that's how it works. So in a way, it is a NASA vehicle for that mission. They have invested their time and effort in it following its progress to ensure mission success.
This is not a NASA launch service. Spacex is not launching a NASA spacecraft. NASA is paying Spacex to deliver supplies to the ISS and hence the NASA Launch Services Program does not have oversight of CRS (Spacex and OA) missions. LSP has very little involvement in these missions. Only a low level advisory role.
-
#222
by
Jcc
on 12 Feb, 2017 13:30
-
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.
That being the case, it should probably have been explicit in the schedule, x days for fit checks, a formal WDR, then a static fire, instead of scheduling a static fire and then having to move it to fix the inevitable bugs and gremlins.
-
#223
by
vanoord
on 12 Feb, 2017 13:35
-
You are correct; I have no direct evidence of any systems tests. But lets be real here, no one in there right mind will build a complex system and not perform some type of functional testing once it is assembled. Would you re-build your car's transmission and not take it for a test drive before loading up the family and going on a long trip?
I don't see there can be any assumption other than that full testing of the GSE is what we're seeing at the moment, up to and including the static fire.
With respect to the analogy, the work that's been undertaken has been to the pad - so it's like the car is coming out of a new garage and heading off on a long trip, not that work has been carried out to the car.
(Away from the analogy, yes the F9 has had work to deal with the Amos-6 issues - but the 'RTF' has already occurred at VAFB.).
The new pad is the potentially unknown quantity and there's not much difference whether it's tested with a new F9 or a used F9.
The consequences of a GSE issue causing LOV would go a lot, lot further than the need to build another new F9 - particularly given there are already several new F9s either complete or in testing (never mind about in build) which could fly CRS-10 instead.
-
#224
by
edkyle99
on 12 Feb, 2017 14:49
-
Just my final word on this - I personally would never use the phrases "this is the way it has always been done" or "it's a pretty safe process" in the aerospace business. We all have our experiences, knowledge and opinions. I am not judging, just wanting to bring up a point of view. As we all know, there are many different ways to get from Point A to Point B.
While this is NOT the way it "has always been done", this is the way it HAS been done by some contractors. Lockheed Martin, if I remember correctly, tested SLC 41 with a flight article Atlas 5. It also used Atlas 3 flight hardware to test SLC 36, etc. There's a history there.
On the other hand, McDonnell Douglas tested SLC 37B with a pathfinder stage, if memory serves. It also used some pathfinder Delta 3 hardware to check out SLC 17 pad modifications. So that company's methods differed from Lockheed Martin methods. ULA today seems to lean more toward Lockheed-Martin protocols, but we won't know for sure until a Vulcan is stacked.
Orbital(-ATK) has used Antares flight hardware for pre-flight pad testing, including hot fire tests, but the flight stages have had to be refurbished before finally flying.
In all cases, the ground systems were almost certainly tested before a rocket arrived, pathfinder or otherwise.
- Ed Kyle
-
#225
by
Coastal Ron
on 12 Feb, 2017 15:15
-
Just my final word on this - I personally would never use the phrases "this is the way it has always been done" or "it's a pretty safe process" in the aerospace business. We all have our experiences, knowledge and opinions. I am not judging, just wanting to bring up a point of view. As we all know, there are many different ways to get from Point A to Point B.
While this is NOT the way it "has always been done", this is the way is HAS been done by some contractors. Lockheed Martin, if I remember correctly, tested SLC 41 with a flight article Atlas 5. It also used Atlas 3 flight hardware to test SLC 36, etc. There's a history there.
On the other hand, McDonnell Douglas tested SLC 37B with a pathfinder stage, if memory serves. It also used some pathfinder Delta 3 hardware to check out SLC 17 pad modifications. So that company's methods differed from Lockheed Martin methods. ULA today seems to lean more toward Lockheed-Martin protocols, but we won't know for sure until a Vulcan is stacked.
Orbital(-ATK) has used Antares flight hardware for pre-flight pad testing, including hot fire tests, but the flight stages have had to be refurbished before finally flying.
In all cases, the ground systems were almost certainly tested before a rocket arrived, pathfinder or otherwise.
I don't have any insight into the technical discussion on this, but I do from a hardware asset standpoint.
If you have a new rocket and a new launch pad, the test schedule could be influenced by the availability of new flight ready hardware, so that would mean that testing new launch facilities needs to be done initially with what you have from the test hardware.
For SpaceX, they don't have test hardware, since they are bringing up Pad 39A during their operational phase of Falcon 9, so all they have is production hardware to use. Which the advantage of using current production hardware is that it is exactly what needs to be tested.
So from a hardware availability situation, it makes sense that SpaceX is using production hardware, because test hardware would have to have been specially built.
-
#226
by
DOCinCT
on 12 Feb, 2017 16:04
-
Earliest T-0 for Sunday's Static Fire attempt with the Falcon 9 on 39A is 2:30pm Eastern, per notice to KSC workers (which we get in L2).
Posting on FaceBook now suggesting NET of 3:30.
-
#227
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Feb, 2017 16:07
-
Earliest T-0 for Sunday's Static Fire attempt with the Falcon 9 on 39A is 2:30pm Eastern, per notice to KSC workers (which we get in L2).
Posting on FaceBook now suggesting NET of 3:30.
Wow, Mark Zuckerberg himself, or was there an actual link to an actual place that was posted?
-
#228
by
Flying Beaver
on 12 Feb, 2017 16:19
-
Earliest T-0 for Sunday's Static Fire attempt with the Falcon 9 on 39A is 2:30pm Eastern, per notice to KSC workers (which we get in L2).
Posting on FaceBook now suggesting NET of 3:30.
Wow, Mark Zuckerberg himself, or was there an actual link to an actual place that was posted?
Basically what Chris is trying to say is include a link and source. Always good practice here. I know, I've been called out on it enough times.
-
#229
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 12 Feb, 2017 16:37
-
-
#230
by
Hankelow8
on 12 Feb, 2017 16:47
-
Plum spot, wonder if we can expect a photo when venting starts ?
-
#231
by
OnWithTheShow
on 12 Feb, 2017 17:43
-
Its the press site.
-
#232
by
edkyle99
on 12 Feb, 2017 18:33
-
Its the press site.
That image is instructive. It shows that
even the press site view is obstructed which explains why we haven't seen many good images. Unless the press has access to the equivalent of all of those old NASA video camera views, it won't see much more than a cloud of steam rising from behind the steel towers 3.5 miles distant (if all goes well) accompanied by a bit of delayed noise.
- Ed Kyle
-
#233
by
psloss
on 12 Feb, 2017 18:47
-
Its the press site.
That image is instructive. It shows that even the press site view is obstructed which explains why we haven't seen many good images. Unless the press has access to the equivalent of all of those old NASA video camera views, it won't see much more than a cloud of steam rising from behind the steel towers 3.5 miles distant (if all goes well) accompanied by a bit of delayed noise.
Pretty much always the case at the press site with the Shuttle service structures at Pad A. When the 39A "skyline" changes, we'll have to see what we see...
(Parts of the causeway would provide a mostly unobstructed view, I would think; however, not sure what the folks that are "perma-badged" can access.)
-
#234
by
rsnellenberger
on 12 Feb, 2017 19:19
-
What is the window today?
-
#235
by
Hauerg
on 12 Feb, 2017 19:20
-
What is the window today?
18:00
-
#236
by
IanThePineapple
on 12 Feb, 2017 19:24
-
Since no venting has been reported, and it's getting late, I'm assuming no fire today, unless they begin fueling pretty soon.
-
#237
by
KaiFarrimond
on 12 Feb, 2017 19:29
-
Since no venting has been reported, and it's getting late, I'm assuming no fire today, unless they begin fueling pretty soon.
Not necessarily, it's a long window that lasts for a few hours after the current T-0
-
#238
by
Flying Beaver
on 12 Feb, 2017 19:42
-
Since no venting has been reported, and it's getting late, I'm assuming no fire today, unless they begin fueling pretty soon.
Tanks won't vent much until they're full.
Both stages are purged with nitrogen. And as they fill the tank with liquid oxygen and (boils off too) gaseous oxygen, they should push the nitrogen out the upper tank vent (N being lighter than O). Only once the tank has been fully filled with LOX should the boiling off gas exit the upper vent.
(correct if wrong plz
)
-
#239
by
ShawnGSE
on 12 Feb, 2017 19:45
-
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.
That being the case, it should probably have been explicit in the schedule, x days for fit checks, a formal WDR, then a static fire, instead of scheduling a static fire and then having to move it to fix the inevitable bugs and gremlins.
I'm sure pad and flight engineers would enjoy some arm-chair quarterbacking of their processes. Static fire has been scrubbed for any number of reasons with fully functional pads. A WDR doesn't promise a problem-free static fire the next day. We've brought 3 different pads online multiple times, trust these guys have a decent idea of what they're doing.
)