Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Bangabandhu-1 : KSC 39A : May 11, 2018 : Discussion  (Read 110061 times)

Online lonestriker

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Houston We Have A Problem
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 29
A launch time has been posted for May 4th: 2000-2225 GMT (4:00-6:25 p.m. EDT)

Thanks, thats fantastic news :) This launch is arguably more important than FH (arguably because I think it is but most might not agree). I am on a business trip that day but should be home by that time. :)

It's more important in that the Block 5 F9 is going to be doing something like 90% of their launches.

But it's all the same technology, so I think it's splitting hairs.

Hard to be the raw awesomeness and excitement of the FH.

Obviously both FH and F9B5 are important for their own reasons.  B5 (along with Boeing) are critical for a return for HSF from US soil.  If I had to pick which one to see in person, it would be FH (even the second flight).  B5's coolness factor is mostly hidden from view.



Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 1587
  • Likes Given: 2023
Booster arrival?

https://twitter.com/MoonEx/status/984494354860576774

Whatever it was, it's gone now.  https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156531268366318/

It could be a different booster.

And most likely is a different one :D 1046 was/is basically one week away from static fire for a May 4 launch, so we'll find out very soon, either way.

Online marsbase

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 9
NOAA wave forecast for Florida Atlantic coast through May 1.  Shows building wave action in recovery area prior to May 4 launch date.

http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/Atl_tab.shtml



« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 02:26 PM by marsbase »

Online 2megs

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 7
Delayed from May 4 to May 7 because of "weather". Of note that the (ground level) forecast for the launch site appears ideal, but the forecasted sea state at the recovery site much less so.

Is this the first time they've delayed a launch solely for recovery weather? Sounds like they may never voluntarily expend a Block 5.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 439
Sounds like they may never voluntarily expend a Block 5.
Or not this one in particular.  Inspection after the first flight will tell them a lot about whether or not their design changes had the desired effect.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6515
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 4730
  • Likes Given: 549
Delayed from May 4 to May 7 because of "weather". Of note that the (ground level) forecast for the launch site appears ideal, but the forecasted sea state at the recovery site much less so.

Is this the first time they've delayed a launch solely for recovery weather? Sounds like they may never voluntarily expend a Block 5.

Where do you see a reason... and the reason specifically being sea states?

That would be incredibly suspect to me.  The slip was first announced by the Bangladeshi press on Wednesday - 10 days before the 4 May launch target.  NOAA wave models really only go out 96hrs with any good accuracy.

You don't slip to the right because of potential model predictions 10 days out when those models that far out can change drastically.

And then you slip even farther out beyond any predictions available?  I'd personally take that reason with a grain of salt.

Offline octavo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 102
Could "weather" not refer to space weather? Perhaps there's some debris too close to the ascent path on the 4th?

Online John Santos

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 13
Could "weather" not refer to space weather? Perhaps there's some debris too close to the ascent path on the 4th?
Unlikely.  According to SFN, the launch window is 2 hours 25 minutes.  Just delaying 30 seconds would put any nearby debris 150 miles (240 Km) away.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
  • US
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 1525
Remember when that guy blamed a 3 month slip on hurricane Irma? Whatever the reason is, it's probably not the weather.

Online marsbase

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 9
was first announced by the Bangladeshi press on Wednesday - 10 days before the 4 May launch target.  NOAA wave models really only go out 96hrs with any good accuracy.
I've been watching those 96 hour maps for the last 2 days and they've gotten much worse.  NOAA publishes out to 96 hours but SpaceX may have access to longer range forecasts.  It doesn't have to be "accurate" to be bad enough.  And the time frame is not just 10 days out but any time in a range from when OCISLY  leaves port until it returns.  SpaceX recently lost the one-use Block 4 Hispasat booster due to high seas and they surely don't want to lose the first Block 5.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 05:19 PM by marsbase »

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6515
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 4730
  • Likes Given: 549
was first announced by the Bangladeshi press on Wednesday - 10 days before the 4 May launch target.  NOAA wave models really only go out 96hrs with any good accuracy.
I've been watching those 96 hour maps for the last 2 days and they've gotten much worse.  NOAA publishes out to 96 hours but SpaceX may have access to longer range forecasts.  It doesn't have to be "accurate" to be bad enough.  And the time frame is not just 10 days out but any time in a range from when OCISLY  leaves port until it returns.  SpaceX recently lost the one-use Block 4 Hispasat booster due to high seas and they surely don't want to lose the first Block 5.

SpaceX chose to expend the Hispasat 1F new Block 4.  They could have waited if recovery was that important.  It wasn't.  So they didn't lose a Block 4 to high seas.  They opted to expend instead of waiting.  And... that decision was not made 10 days in advance. It was made in the final couple days before liftoff when sea states were known to be too bad for recovery.

Weather predictions 10 days out are not reliable enough in any medium to delay a multi-million mission.  And I still can't find any reference to weather being the reason; I still haven't seen anyone issue a reason.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 07:20 PM by ChrisGebhardt »

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6515
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 4730
  • Likes Given: 549
Delayed from May 4 to May 7 because of "weather". Of note that the (ground level) forecast for the launch site appears ideal, but the forecasted sea state at the recovery site much less so.

Is this the first time they've delayed a launch solely for recovery weather? Sounds like they may never voluntarily expend a Block 5.

Where do you see a reason... and the reason specifically being sea states?

That would be incredibly suspect to me.  The slip was first announced by the Bangladeshi press on Wednesday - 10 days before the 4 May launch target.  NOAA wave models really only go out 96hrs with any good accuracy.

You don't slip to the right because of potential model predictions 10 days out when those models that far out can change drastically.

And then you slip even farther out beyond any predictions available?  I'd personally take that reason with a grain of salt.

Found the (seeming) origin of this.  It's a Twitter post linking to a Reddit thread where someone asked if the delay could be because of weather.  The consensus of that thread - with input from weather forecasters - is that there's no way they have accurate enough forecasts on sea states 10 days out to slip a launch.

AKA.  It's not weather.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
  • US
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 1525
Some of the Bangladeshi news articles said the Minister of Communications blamed it on the weather. It's just what that guy does.

Offline Michael Baylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
  • Liked: 752
  • Likes Given: 343
Yeah, here's a link to an article blaming weather. I am very skeptical. This makes ZERO sense. https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2018/04/25/launching-bangabandhu-1-deferred/

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 59
The GFS forecast for the approximate landing area shows slightly better conditions on the 4th than the 7th - which looks to be within parameters for a landing attempt.

Offline OnWithTheShow

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 295
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 17
From update thread:
Quote
We have a Falcon emerging from the barn

Since static fire is supposedly NET Friday can we assume that this is for fit checks for new equipment related to Block 5?

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
  • US
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 1525
From update thread:
Quote
We have a Falcon emerging from the barn

Since static fire is supposedly NET Friday can we assume that this is for fit checks for new equipment related to Block 5?

NET Friday is tomorrow.  Bringing the rocket to the pad today doesn't really seem early.

Offline Joffan

  • NSF Irregular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 982
From update thread:
Quote
We have a Falcon emerging from the barn

Since static fire is supposedly NET Friday can we assume that this is for fit checks for new equipment related to Block 5?

NET Friday is tomorrow.  Bringing the rocket to the pad today doesn't really seem early.

Also I doubt that the interfaces from the ground to the TEL have changed significantly, and the fitting up at the rocket itself has now been done.
Max Q for humanity becoming spacefaring

Tags: