-
#940
by
shuttlefan
on 10 Jan, 2018 13:21
-
We should be a little bit more patient, waiting for static fire. For a new rocket, the first “Wet Dress Rehearsal” is always finished with emptying fuel tanks, among other procedures, as exercise for an emergency. It is enough for a working day. If everything is perfect (always are needed small corrections), only then we will see static fire next day.
Are they planning to fuel the FH today stopping short of engine ignition?
-
#941
by
Jet Black
on 10 Jan, 2018 14:20
-
We should be a little bit more patient, waiting for static fire. For a new rocket, the first “Wet Dress Rehearsal” is always finished with emptying fuel tanks, among other procedures, as exercise for an emergency. It is enough for a working day. If everything is perfect (always are needed small corrections), only then we will see static fire next day.
Are they planning to fuel the FH today stopping short of engine ignition?
It doesn't look like it:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44376.60. It would be odd if there was a reason to delay Static Fire but still fill the FH, since the plan afaik had been to fill and if there were no problems, Static Fire.
-
#942
by
DaveS
on 10 Jan, 2018 15:15
-
I wonder if this has anything to do with the delay of the static fire?
-
#943
by
russianhalo117
on 10 Jan, 2018 15:19
-
I wonder if this has anything to do with the delay of the static fire?
There are also workers at the pad on Lifts and ladders working at the base of the core and boosters per previous posts.
-
#944
by
the_other_Doug
on 10 Jan, 2018 15:22
-
I wonder if this has anything to do with the delay of the static fire?
Probably. I believe there are go/no-go criteria on fueling operations when there is lightning within 'n' miles of the pad. If it looks like there will be a few storm fronts passing through the region during the SF window for today, it makes sense for the whole affair to be postponed a day.
-
#945
by
avollhar
on 10 Jan, 2018 15:27
-
SpaceX filed for a modification of the FCC permit for the launch vehicle communications on this mission:
Please explain the purpose of operation: Launch vehicle communications for mission launching from Kennedy Space Center. We are increasing bandwidth on two frequencies from original application approved under: 1259-EX-ST-2017.
Can this tell us anything about what they might do with increased bandwidth? Does it mean the stage can be communicated with for longer as it starts on it's way to Mars orbit? If so, why?
Intriguing 
Perhaps just because they need three video/telemetry channels, one for each booster.
Au contraire: more bandwidth equals more data, but required higher power and/or shorter range. Long range usually means reducing the datarate but this would be possible to reconfigure in flight (if there is some uplink which is not clear at all).
-
#946
by
the_other_Doug
on 10 Jan, 2018 15:41
-
Perhaps SpaceX wants to send back a true HD feed (of at least 1080p resolution, if not all they way up to 4K UHD) from the roadster as the Earth dwindles in its rear-view mirror? While the onboard cameras flown on the Falcons are nice, they are *not* sending back a true HD stream, I don't think.
I'm sure it won't be tenable to keep such a video stream going for all that long -- a day or two, maybe. But the S2 batteries that will operate the payload camera(s) won't last much longer than that, either. So, no problem...
-
#947
by
Inoeth
on 10 Jan, 2018 15:49
-
So, one minor question I have is, should SpaceX complete the static fire this week to their liking (and I say this week, as I won't be surprised if it is delayed and scrubbed a couple times).... why is the launch date several weeks later? Wouldn't it make more sense to give their teams a couple days rest if everything goes well and then just launch- perhaps around that earlier reported date of the 15th.... Is it just scheduling conflicts on the range as to why they're waiting several weeks?
-
#948
by
Basto
on 10 Jan, 2018 15:54
-
So, one minor question I have is, should SpaceX complete the static fire this week to their liking (and I say this week, as I won't be surprised if it is delayed and scrubbed a couple times).... why is the launch date several weeks later? Wouldn't it make more sense to give their teams a couple days rest if everything goes well and then just launch- perhaps around that earlier reported date of the 15th.... Is it just scheduling conflicts on the range as to why they're waiting several weeks?
After the WDR and static fire they will be reviewing all of the data to make sure nothing unexpected occurred. I suspect this rocket will have a ton of extra sensors to provid them with data points.
-
#949
by
Nomadd
on 10 Jan, 2018 16:02
-
SpaceX filed for a modification of the FCC permit for the launch vehicle communications on this mission:
The interesting bit are the transmitter frequencies of stage 2: 2232.5 and 2272.5 MHz. Well within the capabilities of amateur radio tracking stations worldwide. Now we would just need some coarse trajectory to point the antennas to..
We can hope for a launch into the ecliptic plane (direction) and from the launch telemetry on the webcast (speed) should it all go well, we might be able to set up a trajectory model with crude orbital elements.
That's the frequency range the old Apollo tracking antennas that are at Boca Chica worked on. They're not going yet, but if they were upgraded with DSN class electronics they should be able to reach a New Horizons type setup as far as most of Mars's orbit.
-
#950
by
Jim
on 10 Jan, 2018 16:09
-
I wonder how long the static fire will be, does anyone know? I'd guess 7 seconds rather than 3.5 to get lots more data.
12 seconds or so
-
#951
by
Jim
on 10 Jan, 2018 16:11
-
SpaceX filed for a modification of the FCC permit for the launch vehicle communications on this mission:
Please explain the purpose of operation: Launch vehicle communications for mission launching from Kennedy Space Center. We are increasing bandwidth on two frequencies from original application approved under: 1259-EX-ST-2017.
Can this tell us anything about what they might do with increased bandwidth? Does it mean the stage can be communicated with for longer as it starts on it's way to Mars orbit? If so, why?
Intriguing
Perhaps just because they need three video/telemetry channels, one for each booster.
Au contraire: more bandwidth equals more data, but required higher power and/or shorter range. Long range usually means reducing the datarate but this would be possible to reconfigure in flight (if there is some uplink which is not clear at all).
no, he is right. it is for the additional boosters.
-
#952
by
gongora
on 10 Jan, 2018 16:50
-
SpaceX filed for a modification of the FCC permit for the launch vehicle communications on this mission:
Please explain the purpose of operation: Launch vehicle communications for mission launching from Kennedy Space Center. We are increasing bandwidth on two frequencies from original application approved under: 1259-EX-ST-2017.
Can this tell us anything about what they might do with increased bandwidth? Does it mean the stage can be communicated with for longer as it starts on it's way to Mars orbit? If so, why?
Intriguing
Perhaps just because they need three video/telemetry channels, one for each booster.
Au contraire: more bandwidth equals more data, but required higher power and/or shorter range. Long range usually means reducing the datarate but this would be possible to reconfigure in flight (if there is some uplink which is not clear at all).
no, he is right. it is for the additional boosters.
The modification to the permit is not for the additional boosters, the original permit already had separate communications for the three boosters and second stage.
The emission designator for the second stage communications was changed from 3M22F1D to 4M84F1D.
-
#953
by
loki
on 10 Jan, 2018 16:51
-
I wonder how long the static fire will be, does anyone know? I'd guess 7 seconds rather than 3.5 to get lots more data.
12 seconds or so
Could be calculated easily, the empty fields should be filled …
:
1. Completing staggered start sequence for all 27 engines ____sec,
2. Throttle up to 100% of thrust ____sec,
3. Waiting for steady-state vibration mode ____sec,
4. Taking data ____sec,
______________________________________________________________
TOTAL: sec.
Can’t wait for launch, Zuma situation makes me more nervous...
-
#954
by
RocketLover0119
on 10 Jan, 2018 17:20
-
reddit user jdnz82 said that KSC officials were given a notice of a (gasp) 15 second firing!
-
#955
by
rakaydos
on 10 Jan, 2018 17:57
-
Someone mentioned that the new frequencies on in amature radio bands? I wonder if they are for the payload. "Tesla to mars, playing David Bowie's Space Oddity." Someone's got to be able to hear it...
-
#956
by
loki
on 10 Jan, 2018 18:02
-
reddit user jdnz82 said that KSC officials were given a notice of a (gasp) 15 second firing!
Pad 39A Water Suppression System can provide suppression for 15 seconds easily. Spacex staff will be careful, to not make any unnecessary damage to the pad's flame trench, also.
-
#957
by
AncientU
on 10 Jan, 2018 18:06
-
reddit user jdnz82 said that KSC officials were given a notice of a (gasp) 15 second firing!
The reaction frame is going to get a workout, that's for sure.
-
#958
by
atsf90east
on 10 Jan, 2018 18:19
-
reddit user jdnz82 said that KSC officials were given a notice of a (gasp) 15 second firing!
The resident alligators are not going to be happy!
-
#959
by
clongton
on 10 Jan, 2018 19:44
-
reddit user jdnz82 said that KSC officials were given a notice of a (gasp) 15 second firing!
The resident alligators are not going to be happy!
I remember the larger alligators during a Saturn-V launch coming to the surface and bellowing, similar to a grunting. It has been speculated (I stress that) that the vibrations of the launch felt similar to the gators as a mating call. All I can tell you is that I could feel it pounding inside my chest as all that thunder rose into the sky.
