-
#600
by
IntoTheVoid
on 19 Feb, 2017 16:38
-
FAA lady is happy with the safety of the launch.
Her responses sounded like she was reading off a script, and she kept reading it over and over again without actually answering any of the questions. She midaswell not have even bothered showing up.
She a government administrator charged with enforcing regulations enacted pursuant to federal law in an even-handed and non-discriminatory (*) manner. In what way would you prefer her to have answered any particular question?
(*) Non-discriminatory as to any other applicant for commercial space launch and landing applicants.
She could have said Launch Licenses are not generally denied, but issuance is withheld until issues are resolved and a license is granted (presuming it's true, or simply yes, but I'm not a liberty to discuss specifics otherwise)
She could have said that issuance of a license takes roughly n FTE hours, but it varies widely and we make every effort to complete the work before a scheduled launch.
She could have said that since the recently issued license covers Dragon from Pad 39A launches for two years, that the next Dragon launch would indeed be easier because it's already licensed.
Any of these statement or similar ones wouldn't be giving anything away and would let her not come across as a useless parrot.
-
#601
by
DOCinCT
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:02
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
My guess is they have refined the Rainbird startup to be "just in time" rather than to soak down the base of the rocket.
Just in Time seemed to be at T-.05 seconds more for protection of the pad than noise suppression?
-
#602
by
ppb
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:02
-
SpaceX has done it again! A beautiful launch from famed Launch Complex 39-A after almost 6 years of no launch operations. A successful landing at LZ-1 followed by a successful deployment of the CRS-10 Dragon. This, my friends, is what I think of when I hear American exceptionalism.
No other company, currently launching orbital missions has successfully launched and recovered a first stage booster upon completion of its assigned role. Now, some may claim Jeff Bezos has done the same thing but, one HUGE difference is the Bezos rocket has, thus far, only demonstrated the capability to fly sub-orbital flights and has yet to fly an orbital mission profile.
Well said, drnscr
-
#603
by
mdeep
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:05
-
-
#604
by
TripD
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:08
-
@mdeep, where were you when you took those shots? They appear to be taken from an elevated spot.
-
#605
by
Joffan
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:09
-
Slightly annoying glitch in the NASA recap of the event where they talk about Dragon separation before showing the landing sequence (which also shows S2 still accelerating). Also missed a trick by not including the "Apollo 11"-inspired shot of Falcon rising from the FSS. Nice sonic booms on landing though.
-
#606
by
deBASHmode
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:11
-
@mdeep - nice photos! Great launch - worth getting up at 6 a.m. for here in the left coast.
-
#607
by
ugordan
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:27
-
I'm surprised that the first operational use of the Autonomous Flight Termination System (AFTS) hasn't received more comments.
I was actually suprised by this statement from USAF because my assumption had been that Atlas V already started utilizing this. When I think about it more, it might "only" have switched to GPS-assisted ascent tracking currently?
-
#608
by
mdeep
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:28
-
@mdeep, where were you when you took those shots? They appear to be taken from an elevated spot.
VAB roof
-
#609
by
deruch
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:47
-
I'm surprised that the first operational use of the Autonomous Flight Termination System (AFTS) hasn't received more comments.
I was actually suprised by this statement from USAF because my assumption had been that Atlas V already started utilizing this. When I think about it more, it might "only" have switched to GPS-assisted ascent tracking currently?
They may have been using it in shadow mode on Atlas V launches, but the first operational usage happened to be for Falcon 9 just as a result of scheduling.
-
#610
by
fatdeeman
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:01
-
-
#611
by
Coastal Ron
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:07
-
Launch/landing photos, now that I've had a chance to get them on a computer...
Maybe it has to do with the zoom lens, but the 1st stage looks massively big in the pics.
-
#612
by
edkyle99
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:22
-
Launch/landing photos, now that I've had a chance to get them on a computer...
Maybe it has to do with the zoom lens, but the 1st stage looks massively big in the pics.
It is big. It is longer than a 737, etc. The first stage and interstage together are about 80% as tall as a complete Atlas 5-401. 150+ feet.
- Ed Kyle
-
#613
by
obi-wan
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:36
-
Wow - SpaceX clearly got permission to fly a drone in CCAFS airspace to film the landing! This begs the question - did they launch the drone after the Falcon 9 cleared the area, or was it already in the air at F9 launch? And if so, is there some aerial footage of the F9 launch, too? I've always said that the drone footage of the Grasshopper flights is some of the most impressive SpaceX video ever, and they really ought to work to get those shots on launches, too - maybe it's coming soon?
-
#614
by
dodo
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:43
-
From the updates thread,
Presumably Dragon...
42053 OBJECT A 2017-009A 90.11min 51.63deg 363km 209km
I'm confused - I thought I heard one of the guys in the hosted webcast mention a parking orbit of 200 x 600 Km. (and I assume that this apogee does not necessarily has to be the ISS altitude). Saw it around
min. 37 27:30 of the webcast.
( Apologies, I don't know how to post a link without the video getting pseudo-embedded. See watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI&t=
2219 1640 )
Edit: the video somehow changed length
-
#615
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:54
-
FAA lady is happy with the safety of the launch.
Her responses sounded like she was reading off a script, and she kept reading it over and over again without actually answering any of the questions. She midaswell not have even bothered showing up.
She a government administrator charged with enforcing regulations enacted pursuant to federal law in an even-handed and non-discriminatory (*) manner. In what way would you prefer her to have answered any particular question?
(*) Non-discriminatory as to any other applicant for commercial space launch and landing applicants.
She could have said ... (SNIP)
None of that is really accurate, however. The first is simply not true - there is nothing "routine" about commercial spacecraft launch licenses. There are simply not that many of them issued in any given year. Each one is unique to vehicle configuration and operator and the administrators who review and approve the paperwork must have latitude to review each application within the constraints of the then-existing FAA regulations, without having public statements made in a news conference used as some form of precedent or argument by another provider in the future.
As to the rest ... she may not know how many full-time employee-equivalent hours it takes to issue a license because, again, each launch provider is different, there aren't that many issued every year from which to draw generalized conclusions and amateurs on the internet playing lawyer from the comfort of their living rooms would take any such statement and use it to argue about future launch license issuances (or presumed denials) from some claimed citation to authority based on a news conference statement.
Et ceter, ad nauseum, ad tedium.
tl;dr - that's not how government regulatory administrators work when facing the public. There's a lot more technical detail shared and meaningful give and take within the constraints of officialdom when shielded by "proprietary" technical data interchange with the applicants. Rest assured, when CST-100 launches, she or her equivalent will be there saying the same stuff.
edit: typos
-
#616
by
ugordan
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:58
-
I'm confused - I thought I heard one of the guys in the hosted webcast mention a parking orbit of 200 x 600 Km.
Pretty sure that 600 Km was misspoken, Dragons are inserted below ISS orbit.
Apologies, I don't know how to post a link without the video getting pseudo-embedded.
You can't, not without breaking the url with tags in clever places. One of the "features" of this forum...
-
#617
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 19 Feb, 2017 19:07
-
Presumably Dragon...
42053 OBJECT A 2017-009A 90.11min 51.63deg 363km 209km
very likely. Stage 2 was deorbited and only other orbital objects are solar array fairing and I forget when nose fairing jettison occurs.
During second-stage boost before orbit is achieved; there was excellent video of it falling behind the MVac nozzle this time.
-
#618
by
edkyle99
on 19 Feb, 2017 19:14
-
Don't believe Wikipedia. This was the 95th launch from LC 39A, a number that includes 12 Saturn 5 and
82 Space Shuttle liftoffs. You can count the STS launches yourself at
http://www.planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/STSAny confirmation of second stage de-orbit burn?
- Ed Kyle
-
#619
by
deruch
on 19 Feb, 2017 19:33
-
Edit: the video somehow changed length
After the event is over, SpaceX trims the video so that all the excess of just opening splash screen with music running is removed and then posts it using the same url as the livestream. So, if you had taken the time stamp from the video including the filler, then it won't be accurate any longer.
