Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : Intelsat 35e : July 5, 2017 : DISCUSSION (Read 186125 times)

cppetrie · « **Reply #140 on:** 07/02/2017 11:38 pm »

Looked on the webcast like the vehicle jolted at the last second.

Lars-J · « **Reply #141 on:** 07/02/2017 11:39 pm »

Quote from: GeneBelcher on 07/02/2017 11:37 pm

Strongback didn't retract any?

It did, but it appears to have moved back now.

GeneBelcher · « **Reply #142 on:** 07/02/2017 11:44 pm »

Quote from: Lars-J on 07/02/2017 11:39 pm

Quote from: GeneBelcher on 07/02/2017 11:37 pm
Strongback didn't retract any?

It did, but it appears to have moved back now.

Ok, yeah, just watched the replay. I thought it moved a bit more than that. I saw the clamps open but didn't notice it move back at all.

Lar · « **Reply #143 on:** 07/02/2017 11:46 pm »

Well darn. Aborted due to GNC at 9 seconds to go. SpaceX does a lot less aborting than it used to, but that doesn't mean none ever happen at all. Will be interesting to see what it was.

Edit: Someone caught me on a less/fewer mistake. And ever so thoughtfully reported it! Gee thanks!!! Not like HIS posts are perfect... But I digress... Rather than change my original wording to "fewer", I changed other words around it so that "less" actually works. So there.

Jarnis · « **Reply #144 on:** 07/02/2017 11:47 pm »

Bingo picks? "in the drink, barge nowhere to be seen"

jimbowman · « **Reply #145 on:** 07/02/2017 11:48 pm »

June went very smooth. It happens.

Yellowstone10 · « **Reply #146 on:** 07/02/2017 11:50 pm »

Quote from: cppetrie on 07/02/2017 11:38 pm

Looked on the webcast like the vehicle jolted at the last second.

Watching the stream again at quarter-speed, the entire frame was moving, so I think that was probably just the camera.

Bubbinski · « **Reply #147 on:** 07/02/2017 11:50 pm »

GNC violation, that's guidance and navigation right?

At least it aborted rather than launch and fail. Interestingly enough, the Chinese launch happened about this same time of day on Hainan Island 12 hours ago. A failure and a scrub. Hope we have a better day tomorrow for the Falcon, if she can go then.

cppetrie · « **Reply #148 on:** 07/02/2017 11:54 pm »

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 07/02/2017 11:50 pm

Quote from: cppetrie on 07/02/2017 11:38 pm
Looked on the webcast like the vehicle jolted at the last second.
Watching the stream again at quarter-speed, the entire frame was moving, so I think that was probably just the camera.

Good. If it had been just the rocket it would seem to indicate a potentially large problem.

butters · « **Reply #149 on:** 07/02/2017 11:57 pm »

There have been many many pad aborts in the more distant past, but at T-10s? Usually the aborts of that era would be associated with engine start after T-3s or things like internal power or guidance alignment which take place before T-60s.

In the recent past, they seemed to have got it to point where a successful static fire practically ensured a successful launch commit. We're looking for an issue which didn't rear its head during the static fire 3 days ago and causes an abort at T-10s. Beats me.

Star One · « **Reply #150 on:** 07/02/2017 11:59 pm »

Quote from: Bubbinski on 07/02/2017 11:50 pm

GNC violation, that's guidance and navigation right?

At least it aborted rather than launch and fail. Interestingly enough, the Chinese launch happened about this same time of day on Hainan Island 12 hours ago. A failure and a scrub. Hope we have a better day tomorrow for the Falcon, if she can go then.

By the sounds of it, it will not necessarily be tomorrow.

ulm_atms · « **Reply #151 on:** 07/03/2017 12:03 am »

If we want to play bingo(ish)...we can play "What GNC issue it may be" and see who wins.

Kidding aside.

I would think there is a huge number of things that it could be. Isn't the GNC basically "The Flight Computer" for the whole rocket or is a subset of something else? I ask this truly not knowing if they are one in the same. The webcast says flight computer...but to do "Guidance and Navigation" you pretty much have to be able to control the entire rocket.

Addition: Also, was it me or did the people on the launch audio kinda sound like they see an error...but don't know what it means?

Edit: spellings & addition

Yellowstone10 · « **Reply #152 on:** 07/03/2017 12:18 am »

Quote from: butters on 07/02/2017 11:57 pm

In the recent past, they seemed to have got it to point where a successful static fire practically ensured a successful launch commit. We're looking for an issue which didn't rear its head during the static fire 3 days ago and causes an abort at T-10s. Beats me.

CRS-10 was aborted at T-13s in February of this year due to a TVC issue.

intrepidpursuit · « **Reply #153 on:** 07/03/2017 02:01 am »

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 07/03/2017 12:18 am

CRS-10 was aborted at T-13s in February of this year due to a TVC issue.

Yeah. TVC was my first thought since we've seen it before. I wasn't listening closely, but it sounded like they announced it had passed a TVC test with more than a minute left. I could have miss heard or there could be additional tests or processing afterward.

dorkmo · « **Reply #154 on:** 07/03/2017 02:21 am »

what time does the deluge usually kick in? Almost felt earlier this time.

Lars-J · « **Reply #155 on:** 07/03/2017 02:28 am »

Quote from: dorkmo on 07/03/2017 02:21 am

what time does the deluge usually kick in? Almost felt earlier this time.

No it was about normal. And that wasn't even the full deluge, that kicks in a second (or two) after liftoff.

Michael Baylor · « **Reply #156 on:** 07/03/2017 03:15 am »

If they can't launch tomorrow, how much time do they have before the range maintenance period begins? Is there any flexibility in the range downtime if SpaceX requires a few more days to resolve the problem?

Comga · « **Reply #157 on:** 07/03/2017 05:03 am »

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 07/03/2017 12:18 am

CRS-10 was aborted at T-13s in February of this year due to a TVC issue.

I was at the abort and subsequent launch of CRS-10.
My recollection is that we were told that there were more serious consequences to aborting after T-10 rather than before.
(With some sincerity I hypothesized that Musk, who had been watching something out-of-family since about T-60 min, waited until T-15 seconds to call an abort so that it WOULDN'T go under T-10.)
Does anyone have any information on what systems change at T-10 and what those consequences could be?

guckyfan · « **Reply #158 on:** 07/03/2017 05:48 am »

Quote from: Comga on 07/02/2017 10:36 pm

We appear to be wandering from commenting on today's launch

Yes, but very interesting and informative for people like me. Thanks for that.

Jim · « **Reply #159 on:** 07/03/2017 06:10 am »

Quote from: Comga on 07/03/2017 05:03 am

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 07/03/2017 12:18 am
CRS-10 was aborted at T-13s in February of this year due to a TVC issue.

I was at the abort and subsequent launch of CRS-10.
My recollection is that we were told that there were more serious consequences to aborting after T-10 rather than before.
(With some sincerity I hypothesized that Musk, who had been watching something out-of-family since about T-60 min, waited until T-15 seconds to call an abort so that it WOULDN'T go under T-10.)
Does anyone have any information on what systems change at T-10 and what those consequences could be?

It isn't at T-10, but likely later, and likely involves the engine start sequence. There is a lag when holds are called. Want to be able to complete the hold process before start sequence.