-
#660
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 20 Feb, 2017 09:19
-
Watching the hosted webcast, they gave some more details about the TVC issue. The primary TVC was working fine, but the backup secondary TVC was not working properly. A similar thing happened with the Apollo 16 CSM while orbiting the Moon. With Apollo 16, they decided to continue since the secondary system could still be used. As we all know now, SpaceX decided to scrub the launch at T-13 seconds and perform some replacements of the TVC system. That was the right call in my opinion since if the primary system failed during flight, the secondary system could probably not be relied upon to do its job.
-
#661
by
Bob Shaw
on 20 Feb, 2017 09:47
-
Looks like there *was* a camera on the LUT - still, but the brief video shot during the countdown suggests there may be video to come as well.
-
#662
by
ugordan
on 20 Feb, 2017 10:07
-
Looks like there *was* a camera on the LUT - still, but the brief video shot during the countdown suggests there may be video to come as well.
There is a video camera on the tower, it was shown on the hosted webcast at T-57sec and at T+5sec, but it's located at a lower level than the photo above. I'm guessing the latter is one of Ben Cooper's remote cameras.
-
#663
by
old_sellsword
on 20 Feb, 2017 11:28
-
-
#664
by
Jim
on 20 Feb, 2017 11:49
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
Here's a Youtube link to the same moment; you can slow it down to 1/4-time to get a better look at the water plume.
It looks to me like they never quite reached the platform, rather were missing it. But that is based on this one camera angle and zero experience.
The rainbirds are for sound suppression. The peak sound is usually occurs after the vehicle is few hundred above the pad. And it is the sound reflected of the pad structure that is the issue. This when the rainbirds need to be at their full volume and not at T-0. That how it was with the shuttle.
-
#665
by
DanseMacabre
on 20 Feb, 2017 12:23
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
Here's a Youtube link to the same moment; you can slow it down to 1/4-time to get a better look at the water plume.
It looks to me like they never quite reached the platform, rather were missing it. But that is based on this one camera angle and zero experience.
The rainbirds are for sound suppression. The peak sound is usually occurs after the vehicle is few hundred above the pad. And it is the sound reflected of the pad structure that is the issue. This when the rainbirds need to be at their full volume and not at T-0. That how it was with the shuttle.
You can see the rainbirds at full throttle at this point of the webcast:
When the shot goes a bit wider, you can see the rainbirds really ramp up after the rocket clears them.
-
#666
by
Alter Sachse
on 20 Feb, 2017 13:32
-
-
#667
by
edkyle99
on 20 Feb, 2017 13:40
-
SECO seemed to happen about 20 seconds late, any explanation?
Some, if not all of that, is webcast latency. There was, for example, a 10 second delay between ground and on-board views of the first stage landing on the SpaceX split-screen. I would guess that the second stage view has 10 seconds or more of delay. The on-screen mission elapsed time clock does not have the same delay.
- Ed Kyle
-
#668
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 20 Feb, 2017 14:30
-
This debris really looks like birds as they "flap" past the camera... Of course, its much too high up in the atmosphere to be actual birds flying there, but could it be that there were birds (or bats?) which somehow hiked a ride on the first stage (weren't there stories about bats and birds clinging to the main tank of several space shuttle flights?), died outside the atmosphere and were only shaken loose once the first stage started to re-enter the denser parts of the atmosphere?
Cork
-
#669
by
rsdavis9
on 20 Feb, 2017 14:38
-
This debris really looks like birds as they "flap" past the camera... Of course, its much too high up in the atmosphere to be actual birds flying there, but could it be that there were birds (or bats?) which somehow hiked a ride on the first stage (weren't there stories about bats and birds clinging to the main tank of several space shuttle flights?), died outside the atmosphere and were only shaken loose once the first stage started to re-enter the denser parts of the atmosphere?
Cork
I should know this... What sections of the exterior is the cork exactly?
-
#670
by
envy887
on 20 Feb, 2017 14:57
-
This debris really looks like birds as they "flap" past the camera... Of course, its much too high up in the atmosphere to be actual birds flying there, but could it be that there were birds (or bats?) which somehow hiked a ride on the first stage (weren't there stories about bats and birds clinging to the main tank of several space shuttle flights?), died outside the atmosphere and were only shaken loose once the first stage started to re-enter the denser parts of the atmosphere?
Cork
I should know this... What sections of the exterior is the cork exactly?
Most of the interstage and part of the octaweb are insulated with cork.
-
#671
by
toruonu
on 20 Feb, 2017 15:02
-
Congrats to Buzz Aldrin, who made it to another launch. (Had a conversation with him! He praised a mutual colleague, touted some of his own inventions, and told a chiding and affectionate story about Neil Armstrong. It was another amazing few minutes.)
Can we please have those stories retold here?
-
#672
by
Jarnis
on 20 Feb, 2017 15:04
-
There was a delay on the onboard views for sure, but it doesn't fully explain the difference vs. press kit times. I assume the press kit was wrong, unless some other information comes up.
-
#673
by
ugordan
on 20 Feb, 2017 15:21
-
Going back to CRS-8 and CRS-9 webcasts to compare, curiously, SECO was significantly *later* on CRS-8 with the ASDS landing than on CRS-9, a RTLS flight. One might have expected the opposite to be the case, given lower delta V requirements for ASDS, even despite CRS-8 apparently carrying 900 kg more cargo.
CRS-10 falls in the middle in terms of SECO timing.
-
#674
by
clegg78
on 20 Feb, 2017 15:32
-
Could there be a weight difference in the loading of Dragon on the different flights. From what I understand even small changes in weight up there have pretty noticeable changes in burn times, etc...
-
#675
by
mvpel
on 20 Feb, 2017 15:35
-
I wonder what caused the plume that appeared at the upper stage umbilical area on the TEL as it was leaning back? Seems like those propellant lines should be purged by that point. Maybe exhaust glare reflecting from a LOX cloud?
-
#676
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Feb, 2017 15:46
-
I wonder what caused the plume that appeared at the upper stage umbilical area on the TEL as it was leaning back? Seems like those propellant lines should be purged by that point. Maybe exhaust glare reflecting from a LOX cloud?
residual prop igniting or TEL LOX are the usual culprits
-
#677
by
Thorny
on 20 Feb, 2017 15:52
-
I wonder what caused the plume that appeared at the upper stage umbilical area on the TEL as it was leaning back? Seems like those propellant lines should be purged by that point. Maybe exhaust glare reflecting from a LOX cloud?
I think that's just a reflection of the engine plume off vented LOX.
-
#678
by
jcm
on 20 Feb, 2017 16:24
-
Space-Track has cataloged the ejected solar panel covers as objects B and C, named "DRAGON CRS-10 DEB" but
object A (42053) is still named "OBJECT A" by them instead of "DRAGON CRS-10". Possibly they are not sure yet if they are tracking CRS-10 or the second stage (which shouldn't be in orbit any more)?
In related news, no orbit maneuvers by object A yet. I don't know the rendezvous schedule for CRS-10, some
CRS missions raised orbit in a few hours, others took over a day.
-
#679
by
rsdavis9
on 20 Feb, 2017 16:28
-
I watched the launch videos and I cant see any difference in time between clamp release and tel throwback. ( at least as far as youtube single step). So I would say the tel is NOT released even 10ms before the falcon is released.
