-
#440
by
Eagandale4114
on 18 Feb, 2017 17:27
-
There were callouts on the Technical Webcast for AFTS, is that what I think it is?
That would be the autonomous FTS. First time they are using it.
-
#441
by
pstephens
on 18 Feb, 2017 17:58
-
That would be the autonomous FTS. First time they are using it.
According to the press conference yesterday, they have been using AFTS in shadow mode for some time.
-
#442
by
Comga
on 18 Feb, 2017 18:05
-
I didn't hear it on today's loop (maybe I missed it), but isn't there a general announcement they make sometime around T-20 minutes or so that no holds will be called after T-30 seconds or something like that? (Meaning that aborts after that are called by the vehicle health management system itself, right?) If so, did someone override that rule and call an abort late or did the vehicle do it?
I'm pretty sure it is the 10 sec mark that is the last manual opportunity to abort (usually by the launch director). We have seen an abort at T-0 which was done by the computer.
It was pretty clear at t-1.30 when the launch director didn't confirm go for launch that they were taking a look at something.
Musk also tweets:
"System was green for launch. I called it off."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832995083519614976
3 seconds before that 10 second limit.
Our steely eyed missile man blinked.
-
#443
by
Jim
on 18 Feb, 2017 18:15
-
If anything Musk is showing his employees that it's OK to err on the side of caution, which is part of corrective actions they put in place after the CRS-7 flight failure.
As for NASA, they learned the hard way about the consequences of giving in to schedule pressures, or ignoring an abundance of close calls. So I would hope that NASA is heartened to see how much care SpaceX is putting into safely launching their cargo on this mission, since that helps them to understand what the thinking will be when humans are the cargo.
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture. There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
And why did he wait? Why wasn't the scrub called earlier? What could have changed after the issue was detected to make it ok to launch and then not ok. The launch decision process should work without Musk's direct involvement.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
-
#444
by
Jim
on 18 Feb, 2017 18:29
-
-
#445
by
envy887
on 18 Feb, 2017 18:30
-
If anything Musk is showing his employees that it's OK to err on the side of caution, which is part of corrective actions they put in place after the CRS-7 flight failure.
As for NASA, they learned the hard way about the consequences of giving in to schedule pressures, or ignoring an abundance of close calls. So I would hope that NASA is heartened to see how much care SpaceX is putting into safely launching their cargo on this mission, since that helps them to understand what the thinking will be when humans are the cargo.
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture. There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
Maybe. But in the video from the Orbcomm landing, a few seconds before launch he asks something like "Is there anything at all here that doesn't look right?" The answer then was No, but it would not surprise me if he asked that on many other missions as well.
-
#446
by
Coastal Ron
on 18 Feb, 2017 18:47
-
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture.
I didn't say that it was. I was merely pointing out that Musk was showing his employees that it was OK to be cautious. Which could be argued to be leading by example.
There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
Maybe. Maybe not. Pure supposition.
And why did he wait? Why wasn't the scrub called earlier? What could have changed after the issue was detected to make it ok to launch and then not ok.
How do you know there weren't discussions going on out of public view about the issue? Now you seem to be arguing against gathering more information before making a decision...
The launch decision process should work without Musk's direct involvement.
Sure. But Musk is the CTO of the company, so it's not like he doesn't have the qualification to have input.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
My point was that Musk said he was exercising an abundance of caution by not launching, and that there have been cases where NASA did not do that and there were bad consequences. So NASA, as a customer, is evaluating SpaceX on every launch to help them understand how SpaceX deals with various types of situations. This situation will add to that, and I think they will view it in a positive light.
-
#447
by
toruonu
on 18 Feb, 2017 18:48
-
Musk also tweets:
"System was green for launch. I called it off."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832995083519614976
Then something is wrong with the processes if it is green but they still scrubbed.
Well you have to get used to the fact that in the private sector there actually are cases where there is one person who can override all other decisions and scrub a launch if he feels that even though everything is in the green he's not comfortable with the risk. There are instances that go outside the pre-defined checklists and ranges or multiple variables are green, but at the boundaries and he or someone else has a hunch that this may be benign or may be an underlying root cause that is unidentified and decides to override and err on the side of caution.
Here are the tweets that point to this being the exact reason he called it off:
Elon Musk @elonmusk 4h4 hours ago
If this is the only issue, flight would be fine, but need to make sure that it isn't symptomatic of a more significant upstream root cause
Elon Musk @elonmusk 4h4 hours ago
@Zybbby Not obviously related to the (very tiny) helium leak, but also not out of the question
I guess if there hadn't been the helium leak he may well have let the launch go forward. But he probably had a nagging feeling that there was something that they may have not caught and last time there was something like this stuff went kaboom. It's his balls on the line every time the rocket goes so ...
-
#448
by
Hankelow8
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:10
-
Musk was right in taking a very cautious approach, being a retired business man myself he viewed ( correctly )
a further failure would have put his Space x company on a knife edge financially speaking. Why risk anything at all when there is no pressure on a launch date at all.
-
#449
by
kevinof
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:13
-
Challenger was green when it launched but it shouldn't have. That process was really broken.
Sometimes the boss has a make a call based on a gut feeling or whatever. The fact that he did means they don't have launch fever and that's something we all like.
Musk also tweets:
"System was green for launch. I called it off."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832995083519614976
Then something is wrong with the processes if it is green but they still scrubbed.
-
#450
by
cro-magnon gramps
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:14
-
If anything Musk is showing his employees that it's OK to err on the side of caution, which is part of corrective actions they put in place after the CRS-7 flight failure.
As for NASA, they learned the hard way about the consequences of giving in to schedule pressures, or ignoring an abundance of close calls. So I would hope that NASA is heartened to see how much care SpaceX is putting into safely launching their cargo on this mission, since that helps them to understand what the thinking will be when humans are the cargo.
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture. There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
Maybe. But in the video from the Orbcomm landing, a few seconds before launch he asks something like "Is there anything at all here that doesn't look right?" The answer then was No, but it would not surprise me if he asked that on many other missions as well.
What I think is happening with that "question" sentence, is that Musk is trying to instill in his seed group of Launch People, a culture of not being afraid to call off a launch... no pressure to launch... some of these people will possibly be responsible for 100 lives going up hill... start now before you get to 7, 50, 100, 300 passengers... and hopefully it will still be the culture 10-50 years from now...
my farthings worth
ps not worth a tuppenny
-
#451
by
ATPTourFan
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:30
-
The software systems and processes that say GREEN for launch are never perfect. Who is to say SpaceX won't adjust the boundaries of green launch following a full review of this abort? It would only make the process stronger.
Good for Elon that he called the hold. Nothing would be more damaging than a launch failure. Another day of road blocks and support range people on the clock is still nothing compared to Losing the mission.
-
#452
by
Jim
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:32
-
Well you have to get used to the fact that in the private sector there actually are cases where there is one person who can override all other decisions and scrub a launch
That is not unique to the private sector.
-
#453
by
Jim
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:35
-
Stop with the Challenger references (and any for Columbia for that matter). Decades ago. Like I said, different part of NASA that works these and other non shuttle launches.
-
#454
by
Jim
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:38
-
So, why are you same rah rah people not calling out Spacex for submerging carbon fibers in LOX?
-
#455
by
envy887
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:42
-
Anyone know how they pressurize the TVC for pre-launch checks when the tap from the turbopump obviously isn't supplying pressure? High-pressure RP-1 though the umbilical, or do they have a RP-1 accumulator pressurized by helium just for pre-launch?
Or is tank pressure enough to move the TVC through it's checks? That's only ~50 psi while the TVC operates at ~2 ksi.
-
#456
by
kevinof
on 18 Feb, 2017 19:50
-
The point is about processes - doesn't matter if it's decades ago, today or years in the future. Sometimes blindly following a process is the wrong thing to do. Bravo Space X for not being afraid to pause and look some more. As someone else said Musk is setting a standard for the rest of the team to not be afraid to say no and that's good. Last thing any of us want is another launch failure.
Now it's me birthday tomorrow - would be nice to see this thing launch from this pad! Nice pressie.
Stop with the Challenger references (and any for Columbia for that matter). Decades ago. Like I said, different part of NASA that works these and other non shuttle launches.
-
#457
by
rayleighscatter
on 18 Feb, 2017 20:02
-
So, why are you same rah rah people not calling out Spacex for submerging carbon fibers in LOX?
For the same reason that those who have been critical of the NASA Commercial Crew office for erring on the side of caution are now lauding Musk for the same thing.
-
#458
by
Jim
on 18 Feb, 2017 20:06
-
The point is about processes
Correct and that is why Challenger and Columbia are no longer relevant comparisons.
Sometimes blindly following a process is the wrong thing to do. Bravo Space X for not being afraid to pause and look some more. As someone else said Musk is setting a standard for the rest of the team to not be afraid to say no and that's good. Last thing any of us want is another launch failure.
There first needs to be a process and not just gut feelings. If there was an issue, then don't even bother with continuing the count.
-
#459
by
ATPTourFan
on 18 Feb, 2017 20:07
-
The point is about processes - doesn't matter if it's decades ago, today or years in the future. Sometimes blindly following a process is the wrong thing to do. Bravo Space X for not being afraid to pause and look some more. As someone else said Musk is setting a standard for the rest of the team to not be afraid to say no and that's good. Last thing any of us want is another launch failure.
Now it's me birthday tomorrow - would be nice to see this thing launch from this pad! Nice pressie.
Stop with the Challenger references (and any for Columbia for that matter). Decades ago. Like I said, different part of NASA that works these and other non shuttle launches.
Right. If the Process was so bullet-proof, Elon could randomly choose a fan from the causeway to push a big button to start the auto-sequence and everyone at NASA and SpaceX could just crack open a cold beer and watch from their favorite grassy spot.
They put humans on station in the control rooms to oversee what the computers are "seeing". Clearly at this stage in spaceflight tech (and since ever), humans in the loop is preferable to not.
Smart humans add value to supplement the Process to enhance the probability of success, in my opinion.
