I enjoyed the nonchalant webcasting with the perfect launch and landing.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 09/07/2017 08:53 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 09/07/2017 07:49 pmDoes anyone know if the X-37B orbiters have official names or designations? Do they have any distinguishing markings? And do we know for sure which orbiter went up this flight?I hope Chris G or Ed or JCM or Jim can chime in...but my understanding, as of the OTV-4 landing, is no. There are no distinguishing markings, labels, nose art , etc., to tell the 2 different OTVs apart. Note the way that Chris G worded his article--the assumption is that OTV-4 was the 2nd flight of the 2nd OTV, and this flight is the 3rd flight of the 1st OTV.***There was a different distinguishing characteristic about this launch campaign, noted in Chris G's article--the previous 4 OTV flights were processed at Astrotech Titusville. This launch campaign used the Boeing facilities in OPF-1.As these missions have progressed, the U.S. Air Force has provided less and less information. During the first flights, pre-launch images of X-37B being encapsulated within its fairing were provided, but not during the most recent two flights. During the first three flights, the specific spacecraft "tail number" being used was specified, but not during the subsequent flights. And so on. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 09/07/2017 07:49 pmDoes anyone know if the X-37B orbiters have official names or designations? Do they have any distinguishing markings? And do we know for sure which orbiter went up this flight?I hope Chris G or Ed or JCM or Jim can chime in...but my understanding, as of the OTV-4 landing, is no. There are no distinguishing markings, labels, nose art , etc., to tell the 2 different OTVs apart. Note the way that Chris G worded his article--the assumption is that OTV-4 was the 2nd flight of the 2nd OTV, and this flight is the 3rd flight of the 1st OTV.***There was a different distinguishing characteristic about this launch campaign, noted in Chris G's article--the previous 4 OTV flights were processed at Astrotech Titusville. This launch campaign used the Boeing facilities in OPF-1.
Does anyone know if the X-37B orbiters have official names or designations? Do they have any distinguishing markings? And do we know for sure which orbiter went up this flight?
William's article updated to where we are (good launch and landing), but pending USAF release on good S/C Sep for the X-37B.https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09/spacex-first-x-37b-launch-falcon-9/When they arrives, it'll be posted here and then it's mission success and you can all do your one post of congrats, per tradition Can already thanks those who provided coverage, not least Steven (and his technical support, Leo)
So far in 2017 SpaceX has conducted twelve successful Falcon 9 launches, with the rocket’s next missions slated for early October.
I believe that should be thirteen successful Falcon 9 launches for the year, not twelve.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 09/07/2017 02:04 pmTitanium grid fins deployed.Those are the old Aluminum grid fins.
Titanium grid fins deployed.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/07/2017 11:41 pmQuote from: zubenelgenubi on 09/07/2017 08:53 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 09/07/2017 07:49 pmDoes anyone know if the X-37B orbiters have official names or designations? Do they have any distinguishing markings? And do we know for sure which orbiter went up this flight?I hope Chris G or Ed or JCM or Jim can chime in...but my understanding, as of the OTV-4 landing, is no. There are no distinguishing markings, labels, nose art , etc., to tell the 2 different OTVs apart. Note the way that Chris G worded his article--the assumption is that OTV-4 was the 2nd flight of the 2nd OTV, and this flight is the 3rd flight of the 1st OTV.***There was a different distinguishing characteristic about this launch campaign, noted in Chris G's article--the previous 4 OTV flights were processed at Astrotech Titusville. This launch campaign used the Boeing facilities in OPF-1.As these missions have progressed, the U.S. Air Force has provided less and less information. During the first flights, pre-launch images of X-37B being encapsulated within its fairing were provided, but not during the most recent two flights. During the first three flights, the specific spacecraft "tail number" being used was specified, but not during the subsequent flights. And so on. - Ed KyleTo be expected.The initial flights were a proof of concept. Subsequent missions explored capabilities/scope. Perhaps these later missions might require things that would become apparent if too visible?Why beg inconvenient scrutiny?
I suppose the early days were actually very slow compared to now.
This was the 40th F9 launch (of all variants)- seven years after the first flight.Atlas V took eleven years to reach its 40th flight.It's not as bit a difference as I had thought actually. Somehow the SpaceX steamroller feels faster. I suppose the early days were actually very slow compared to now.
Fixed the landing photo from today. This ain't no baby rocket. @NASASpaceflight
Quote from: Kaputnik on 09/08/2017 09:00 amI suppose the early days were actually very slow compared to now.Zero launches in 2011. certainly qualifies as slow...
Does this S1 have the new retractable legs. If so, should reduce time needed to go horizontal.
Quote from: old_sellsword on 09/07/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 09/07/2017 02:04 pmTitanium grid fins deployed.Those are the old Aluminum grid fins.Thanks for the correction. The commentator was talking about Titanium grid fins which is what got me confused.
They looked liked the old aluminum grid fins to me while watching deployment during the landing sequence and left me raising my brow thus-sly ala Spock
Unless these are titanium fins cast to the same pattern as the 1st generation fins, they're aluminium.
