-
#1120
by
spacenut
on 16 Jan, 2018 18:59
-
Ok, just wanted to go see it. Hard to figure a vacation time.
-
#1121
by
goretexguy
on 16 Jan, 2018 19:12
-
Basically, there's no point in building your rocket for about 5% of potential launch customers and in doing so, increase the cost, complexity and thus the possibility of something going awry for the other 95% of your customers.
However, when it comes to automobiles, many cars are purchased based on their 5% use case (sporty handling, towing a trailer, off-road trails, driving in snow...) and not for daily commuting and errands.
But with automobiles, that 5% case is often the selling point. Most Corvette owners never exceed 100 MPH, let alone 200MPH, though the car may be capable of it. When it comes to aerospace- or bridges, buildings, dams or any other object with a high sunk cost- the buyer/user doesn't want to pay for anything other than what is needed.
Which is the beauty of what SpaceX is doing. Reusability allows customers to minimize their costs; a SpaceX customer pays for less rocket, less rocket factory _and_ gets the benefit of a design augmented by an active feedback loop.
IMHO, what SpaceX is doing is _finally_ moving rocketry into the domain of modern aerospace- by which mean reuse, not manufacturing or design. They're still at an early stage, but with returned cores, engineers can finally evaluate structures and use lots of real data to improve designs. I look forward to Blue Origin (or somebody else) to provide and additional 'push' to improve designs and drive costs. I'm also very curious to see what happens do ground/launch operations; we're still very far from 'commercial airport' type operations. I'd love to have a discussion here about what a future system could look like. SpaceX clearly has ideas, but their renderings of BFR launch/land are very skimpy on these details.
I'm also crossing my fingers that the market will grown and develop to the point where competition is viable, even without government flights. I think ULA (and other 'old space' companies) built into their business model the assumption that the market for space access would always be fairly small and dominated by customers who were not very cost-sensitive (i.e., governments).
-
#1122
by
clongton
on 16 Jan, 2018 19:19
-
Ok, just wanted to go see it. Hard to figure a vacation time.
***NEVER *** schedule a vacation around a SpaceX Test schedule.
-
#1123
by
ZachF
on 16 Jan, 2018 19:30
-
You think they're at the point yet where they shuffle it behind SES-16?
-
#1124
by
dglow
on 16 Jan, 2018 19:41
-
By the way - for those folks who keep saying the Boca Chica isn't needed for Falcon 9 / Heavy launches now that there's two operation pads on the Cape, I give you this:
My best guess for #FalconHeavy static fire is that it will now wait till Friday. @ulalaunch is scheduled for a Thurs evening Atlas launch. With rollout tomorrow, Atlas will have the ball for ground support needs and safety perimeter.
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/953346186676703232
I would have thought any SpaceX-ULA safety perimeter overlap/concerns that exist with LC-40 would not apply to 39A. Can someone please educate me? Is it that static fires must be treated as if they could result in a launch?
-
#1125
by
Elthiryel
on 16 Jan, 2018 19:42
-
You think they're at the point yet where they shuffle it behind SES-16?
Yes, I think so.
Originally, static fire was planned for Jan 10th, with launch NET Jan 25th, 15 days after the static fire. If they manage to conduct the test on Friday (after the Atlas V launch), it leaves us with 11 days to GovSat-1/SES-16 (Jan 30th). Falcon 9 for this mission will also undergo a static fire, probably supported by the same team.
So I would be surprised to see the Falcon Heavy launch earlier than February, actually.
-
#1126
by
shuttlefan
on 16 Jan, 2018 20:13
-
Thanks to Chris G. for clarifying in the recent update to his article, that Thursday indeed saw all three cores and the second stage FULLY loaded with propellants. Any word on how many seconds/minutes to ignition that the abort was called?
-
#1127
by
lonestriker
on 16 Jan, 2018 20:22
-
Thanks to Chris G. for clarifying in the recent update to his article, that Thursday indeed saw all three cores and the second stage FULLY loaded with propellants. Any word on how many seconds/minutes to ignition that the abort was called?
The wording is a bit vague:
"Information later noted this was a full prop load, meaning all three cores were loaded together for the first time."
It said that prop was loaded to all three cores at once, but didn't explicitly say that the cores were fully loaded.
-
#1128
by
Lar
on 16 Jan, 2018 20:31
-
I'd love to have a discussion here about what a future system could look like. SpaceX clearly has ideas, but their renderings of BFR launch/land are very skimpy on these details.
Some time back there was a thread about future GSE for reusability. That topic probably is a good place to discuss future systems for BFR, rather than here, which isn't about GSE and isn't about BFR.
-
#1129
by
Kansan52
on 16 Jan, 2018 21:15
-
I would have thought any SpaceX-ULA safety perimeter overlap/concerns that exist with LC-40 would not apply to 39A. Can someone please educate me? Is it that static fires must be treated as if they could result in a launch?
I'll try. The problem is some of the range assets (people, equipment, ect) cannot cover both things at once. Assuming you mean LC-39a and LC-41.
-
#1130
by
mn
on 16 Jan, 2018 21:37
-
They are getting ready for the Atlas launch on Thursday, is it possible that the range asked SpaceX to hold off today? and hence push back to Friday?
-
#1131
by
spacenut
on 16 Jan, 2018 21:52
-
I didn't want to go see the test, I want to go see the launch. I figured if the test was good, then we would have a good launch date, so I can reserve hotel room. The longer the delay for test firing, the longer the delay for launch. I have a lot of things to do in the early spring after February.
-
#1132
by
TheFallen
on 16 Jan, 2018 22:42
-
Can someone please educate me? Is it that static fires must be treated as if they could result in a launch?
Well that, and the static fire could disastrously end like that of the Falcon 9 carrying Amos-6 in September 2016. Now imagine THREE core boosters exploding like that simultaneously.
You don't want any other rocket on a pad at the Cape under that circumstance...even if it's situated more than a mile away.
This interesting article explains why it's been tricky getting Falcon Heavy in position to fire her engines:
https://www.teslarati.com/whats-causing-spacex-falcon-heavy-delays/
-
#1133
by
dglow
on 17 Jan, 2018 00:49
-
I would have thought any SpaceX-ULA safety perimeter overlap/concerns that exist with LC-40 would not apply to 39A. Can someone please educate me? Is it that static fires must be treated as if they could result in a launch?
I'll try. The problem is some of the range assets (people, equipment, ect) cannot cover both things at once. Assuming you mean LC-39a and LC-41.
Thank you. Can someone with greater knowledge elaborate: what range assets must be allocated to a static fire?
Can someone please educate me? Is it that static fires must be treated as if they could result in a launch?
Well that, and the static fire could disastrously end like that of the Falcon 9 carrying Amos-6 in September 2016. Now imagine THREE core boosters exploding like that simultaneously.
You don't want any other rocket on a pad at the Cape under that circumstance...even if it's situated more than a mile away.
Thanks, this is exactly what I wish to better understand. It's exactly 2 miles between 39-A's launch mount and LC-41's perimeter fence. Would an Amos-6-style deflagration (x3 for FH) pose risk to a rocket at LC-41? Or are there other scenarios folks are more worried about?
Do we know the furthest distance that Amos-6 debris travelled?
-
#1134
by
Andy Bandy
on 17 Jan, 2018 01:48
-
-
#1135
by
TheFallen
on 17 Jan, 2018 01:50
-
Thanks, this is exactly what I wish to better understand. It's exactly 2 miles between 39-A's launch mount and LC-41's perimeter fence. Would an Amos-6-style deflagration (x3 for FH) pose risk to a rocket at LC-41? Or are there other scenarios folks are more worried about?
Do we know the furthest distance that Amos-6 debris travelled?
From what I recall, the damage caused by the F9 Amos-6 explosion was only isolated to SLC-40. I reckon that a Falcon Heavy explosion would obliterate much of LC-39A's pad structure but wouldn't pose a major threat, blast-wise, to ULA's assets miles away...since the rocket is liquid-fueled.
If Falcon Heavy had solid rocket boosters (that were obviously new and not flight-proven like the shuttle/SLS SRBs), on the other hand...
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/42298-why-are-solid-rockets-considered-unsafe/The problem with the Amos 6 explosion was not debris. They lost pressure on the chillers that were keeping OSIRIS-REx healthy while it waited for launch nearby. If they hadn't restored it quickly, they would have lost the spacecraft. They also had to a special cleaning to make sure the smoke didn't affect the instruments.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/quick-work-saved-the-osiris-rex-asteroid-mission-from-nearby-explosion/
Oh man, I forgot that OSIRIS-REx/Atlas V was in the VIF when the explosion occurred!
-
#1136
by
IanThePineapple
on 17 Jan, 2018 02:31
-
Could the FSS and the RSS remnant on the FSS survive a FH Amos-6? They're pretty old.
-
#1137
by
IanThePineapple
on 17 Jan, 2018 02:56
-
Could the FSS and the RSS remnant on the FSS survive a FH Amos-6? They're pretty old.
The overpressure probably, though with some damage, but exposure to heat from the subsequent fire might weaken the steel. Depends on the circumstances.
- Ed Kyle
I'm also thinking debris hitting the heated and already weakened metal, and the weight of the rest of the RSS, could pull it down.
-
#1138
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 17 Jan, 2018 03:40
-
It's not about the explosion possibility. Think about it. Doesn't Atlas 5 lifting off also present the same danger to the two adjacent Falcon pads where rockets reside?
It is about range resources, which means personnel, radio frequencies, road closures, etc.
- Ed Kyle
For context, as there seems to be a lot of thought that a hypothetical FH conflagration would level a wide area around LC-39A, Pad-B is open for business during the static fire. Roadblocks only prevent access to Pad-A, not Pad-B. If Pad-B is still open for these evens, that gives a pretty good idea that the FH BDA (Blast Danager Area) ain't that big.
-
#1139
by
dglow
on 17 Jan, 2018 04:50
-
So to the original query: why must the FH static fire stand down for activity at LC-41?
If it's range resources, as you say Ed, please help us understand – there aren't enough people to close roads to both pads?