Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : Intelsat 35e : July 5, 2017 : DISCUSSION (Read 186119 times)

spacenut · « **Reply #220 on:** 07/05/2017 01:34 pm »

Any word on when they will attempt launch again?

envy887 · « **Reply #221 on:** 07/05/2017 01:56 pm »

Quote from: spacenut on 07/05/2017 01:34 pm

Any word on when they will attempt launch again?

Looks like same time today: 19:37 local time July 5th.

The Roadie · « **Reply #222 on:** 07/05/2017 02:24 pm »

Quote from: SLC on 07/04/2017 04:01 pm

...the only difference now is the presence of the payload...

Lots of sensors in the fairings that weren't present for SF.

ZachS09 · « **Reply #223 on:** 07/05/2017 04:43 pm »

To be honest, I'm not sure that the third time will be the charm today.

I'm predicting that another last-second abort will occur for some reason.

John Alan · « **Reply #224 on:** 07/05/2017 04:59 pm »

Quote from: ZachS09 on 07/05/2017 04:43 pm

To be honest, I'm not sure that the third time will be the charm today.

I'm predicting that another last-second abort will occur for some reason.

And I am right there on the fence (50/50) in agreeing with your thought... $:-\$
If it lights and flies today... on time...
I will be mildly amused, yet glad that's over...

I'll then be in 'please no RUD' state of mind till the payload is delivered...

ppb · « **Reply #225 on:** 07/05/2017 06:11 pm »

So what is the best guess at the "Guidance" problem(s) that caused the 2 previous aborts? Is it an IMU alignment issue? What equipment on or offboard is/was faulty? I'm surprised at the lack of speculation here.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #226 on:** 07/05/2017 06:14 pm »

Quote from: John Alan on 07/05/2017 04:59 pm

Quote from: ZachS09 on 07/05/2017 04:43 pm
To be honest, I'm not sure that the third time will be the charm today.

I'm predicting that another last-second abort will occur for some reason.

And I am right there on the fence (50/50) in agreeing with your thought... $:-\$
If it lights and flies today... on time...
I will be mildly amused, yet glad that's over...

I'll then be in 'please no RUD' state of mind till the payload is delivered...

I agree, this feels like one of those ones that could be a hangar queen for awhile. Hopefully they knocked off the cobbweb or smacked something with a hammer and got it straightened out. (This mission is an example that calls into question the values of static fires)

Today, or whatever day, it lifts off I'm going to have a 'Please no RUD' feeling.

The Roadie · « **Reply #227 on:** 07/05/2017 07:07 pm »

Quote from: ppb on 07/05/2017 06:11 pm

So what is the best guess at the "Guidance" problem(s) that caused the 2 previous aborts? Is it an IMU alignment issue? What equipment on or offboard is/was faulty? I'm surprised at the lack of speculation here.

What did anyone say in public that the second abort was a GNC issue, either the same or a different one?

I, for one, am intensely PLEASED at the lack of fact-free speculation here.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #228 on:** 07/05/2017 07:09 pm »

I second that motion.

First scrub: SpaceX said GNC.
Second scrub: No official word (but I'm sure they will speak about it on the webcast tonight).

Lar · « **Reply #229 on:** 07/05/2017 07:12 pm »

Quote from: The Roadie on 07/05/2017 07:07 pm

Quote from: ppb on 07/05/2017 06:11 pm
So what is the best guess at the "Guidance" problem(s) that caused the 2 previous aborts? Is it an IMU alignment issue? What equipment on or offboard is/was faulty? I'm surprised at the lack of speculation here.
What did anyone say in public that the second abort was a GNC issue, either the same or a different one?

I don't think anyone has yet publicly said that. However it's not too bad an assumption to make that there is some relation since both aborts happened at T-0:09 ... Doesn't mean they are.

Quote

I, for one, am intensely PLEASED at the lack of fact-free speculation here.

Unlike some places that shall remain nameless.

The SpaceX group is one of the best managed groups on Facebook (thanks to certain people and their efforts who shall also remain nameless) and yet it's like trying to stop the tide, some days. As you know well.

butters · « **Reply #230 on:** 07/05/2017 07:31 pm »

The previous launch from 39A, BulgariaSat, was delayed due to a reported issue with a valve on the payload fairing. Just noting this in the context of recent events involving 39A and problems detected after static fire.

matthewkantar · « **Reply #231 on:** 07/05/2017 11:32 pm »

Hopefully no stage fright today.

Matthew

cppetrie · « **Reply #232 on:** 07/05/2017 11:42 pm »

So long booster 1037....we barely knew you.

cwr · « **Reply #233 on:** 07/06/2017 12:06 am »

ChrisB noted in the update thread:

Quote

"Was ground software that was the issue, not the rocket"

Does anybody know what changed in the ground S/W after Static fire [when it passed these checks] and the 1st launch attempt on July 2 that failed at approx T-10s?

It's unclear how related the 2nd abort at T-10s is with the 1st.

What am I missing?

Carl

launchwatcher · « **Reply #234 on:** 07/06/2017 12:10 am »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 07/05/2017 07:09 pm

First scrub: SpaceX said GNC.
Second scrub: No official word (but I'm sure they will speak about it on the webcast tonight).

my interpretation of what was said on the webcast: not much.

Scrub happened when a vehicle parameter was outside an acceptable range programmed into ground computers. After review they concluded that the programmed range was too narrow and they widened the range. Exactly which parameter was out of range has not been stated publicly.

Lars-J · « **Reply #235 on:** 07/06/2017 12:10 am »

Quote from: ZachS09 on 07/05/2017 04:43 pm

To be honest, I'm not sure that the third time will be the charm today.

I'm predicting that another last-second abort will occur for some reason.

Don't quit your day job, Nostradamus.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #236 on:** 07/06/2017 12:18 am »

Looked to me like Stage 2 fired for a few seconds longer than listed, which should be a good thing since this is MRS. On the other hand, the first stage shutdown a couple seconds earlier than the announcer stated ahead of time (but a couple seconds longer than the press kit said, so I don't know what that means).

Speed at SECO2 was listed as about 35,460 km/hr (9,850 m/sec), which, if it is referenced to a fixed earth would be about 10,258 m/s - right at roughly GEO apogee.

- Ed Kyle

Rebel44 · « **Reply #237 on:** 07/06/2017 12:25 am »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/06/2017 12:18 am

Looked to me like Stage 2 fired for a few seconds longer than listed, which should be a good thing since this is MRS. On the other hand, the first stage shutdown a couple seconds earlier than the announcer stated ahead of time (but a couple seconds longer than the press kit said, so I don't know what that means).

- Ed Kyle

Maybe announcer misspoke (it happend in past)

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #238 on:** 07/06/2017 12:31 am »

I am pretty sure this was the fastest turn around for Pad 39A, correct? The Gemini launches for 7 and 6 were faster for any pad correct? Or has there been a faster turnaround anywhere else?

cppetrie · « **Reply #239 on:** 07/06/2017 12:34 am »

Quote from: Ronpur50 on 07/06/2017 12:31 am

I am pretty sure this was the fastest turn around for Pad 39A, correct? The Gemini launches for 7 and 6 were faster for any pad correct? Or has there been a faster turnaround anywhere else?

Nope. They missed it when they didn't launch on Monday. If I remember the post from somewhere upthread the record is SkyLab 1 and 2.