Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION  (Read 169614 times)

Offline Ragmar

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Space is the Place
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #160 on: 06/12/2017 06:27 PM »
What USAF stakeholder body was responsible for administering this launch contract?  Was it SMC?  Or was it the Operationally Responsive Space office?  Or someone else?

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Liked: 512
  • Likes Given: 592
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #161 on: 06/12/2017 06:50 PM »
From sketches in the speculative XB-37 on Falcon thread, the fit of the orbiter in the fairing is tight. I would think the Airforce and SpaceX would not want to do the fairing separation blind. Especially for the first time. The knowledge that could be gained in the event of a mishap far outweighs keeping pictures of a (widely photographed) spacecraft secret.

Matthew

You are misinterpreting the picture. That is the allowable payload envelope, not the physical sides of the fairing.

I am aware that the the attempt was an amateur one and not official, my point stands. There will be a camera or cameras imaging the fairing separation from the ground as well as from the launch vehicle. The public may never see the footage.

Matthew

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 1116
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #162 on: 06/12/2017 07:11 PM »
As some have speculated, ULA was not given the opportunity to bid for this particular payload.

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/873243359204302849

Quote
Hey @torybruno, did you bid for the X-37B mission that was awarded to SpaceX?

Quote
No. We were not given the opportunity to bid.

So what? Was there a bidding process for the first 4 launches ???

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #163 on: 06/12/2017 07:13 PM »
From sketches in the speculative XB-37 on Falcon thread, the fit of the orbiter in the fairing is tight. I would think the Airforce and SpaceX would not want to do the fairing separation blind. Especially for the first time. The knowledge that could be gained in the event of a mishap far outweighs keeping pictures of a (widely photographed) spacecraft secret.

Matthew

Not needed.  fairing separation was blind for decades.  Fairing clearance analysis is done without cameras.  There is no need to verify it in flight.  It does little good to do it after the fact. 

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8646
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #164 on: 06/12/2017 08:07 PM »
Not needed.  fairing separation was blind for decades.  Fairing clearance analysis is done without cameras.  There is no need to verify it in flight.  It does little good to do it after the fact. 
Unless it's a payload that will fly often.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8198
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4335
  • Likes Given: 1335
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #165 on: 06/12/2017 08:22 PM »
From sketches in the speculative XB-37 on Falcon thread, the fit of the orbiter in the fairing is tight. I would think the Airforce and SpaceX would not want to do the fairing separation blind. Especially for the first time. The knowledge that could be gained in the event of a mishap far outweighs keeping pictures of a (widely photographed) spacecraft secret.

Matthew

Not needed.  fairing separation was blind for decades.  Fairing clearance analysis is done without cameras.  There is no need to verify it in flight.  It does little good to do it after the fact. 
Correct. The fairing envelope is there for a reason. It is the space inside the fairing that will absolutely never be impacted by fairing separation, as determined by fairing separation testing on the ground. The fairing envelope is for that reason always slightly smaller than the actual volume inside the fairing. As long as the X-37B fits inside the fairing envelope (even if it is an exact fit with the envelope) than there is no need whatsoever to check a clean separation by any other means than 'just' telemetry. No live stream camera's needed, let alone GoPro's.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 458
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #166 on: 06/12/2017 09:36 PM »
It's not rocket science.  The railroads have had the notion of standard clearance for well over a century.  As long as the rolling stock in built within the limits of the inner clearance box, and nothing outside the train impinges on the outer clearance box, everybody's happy.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/rcbook_55515_7.pdf
« Last Edit: 06/12/2017 10:24 PM by rpapo »
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 2342
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #167 on: 06/12/2017 11:09 PM »
The fairing envelope is there for a reason. It is the space inside the fairing that will absolutely never be impacted by fairing separation, as determined by fairing separation testing on the ground. The fairing envelope is for that reason always slightly smaller than the actual volume inside the fairing. As long as the X-37B fits inside the fairing envelope (even if it is an exact fit with the envelope) than there is no need whatsoever to check a clean separation by any other means than 'just' telemetry. No live stream camera's needed, let alone GoPro's.
This kind of thinking always makes me a bit nervous.   I agree that it should not be any problem.  But especially if this is the first payload that actually touches the envelope, you might want to check.  After all, it's at least theoretically possible that tests on the ground might not replicate exactly the conditions in flight.

Software engineers often put tests into code that are impossible by design.  For example, suppose you do some calculation that gives some result x, known to be greater than 0.  Nevertheless, you'll often see code like:

/* At this point, x is >= 0 */
if (x < 0) then
    print "This can't happen: x < 0" then stop.

These are called "assertions".  In theory, they just make your code slower and bigger, since the conditions can never be met.  In practice, they get triggered more than you might think, and they make finding the problem MUCH easier, since the bad condition (which you thought could never happen) does not propagate to cause more obscure problems later. 

So the trade space is "adding something you are pretty sure is not needed" vs "easier debugging if something goes wrong".    Especially early in the life of a product this can be a good trade, or at least one you might look at.  And rockets are always pretty early in their life.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8646
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #168 on: 06/12/2017 11:48 PM »

Software engineers often put tests into code that are impossible by design.  For example, suppose you do some calculation that gives some result x, known to be greater than 0.  Nevertheless, you'll often see code like:

/* At this point, x is >= 0 */
if (x < 0) then
    print "This can't happen: x < 0" then stop.


And thanks to agile and code reviews when the reviewers see it, they make you strip it out of your code because it can't happen! 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline fthomassy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Austin, Texas, Earth, Sol, Orion, Milky-Way, Virgo, Bang 42
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 1625
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #169 on: 06/13/2017 04:34 AM »

Software engineers often put tests into code that are impossible by design.  For example, suppose you do some calculation that gives some result x, known to be greater than 0.  Nevertheless, you'll often see code like:

/* At this point, x is >= 0 */
if (x < 0) then
    print "This can't happen: x < 0" then stop.


And thanks to agile and code reviews when the reviewers see it, they make you strip it out of your code because it can't happen!

Not any more. Now you put that assertion into your test code and never release without testing.
gyatm . . . Fern

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10124
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6970
  • Likes Given: 4754
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #170 on: 06/13/2017 05:01 AM »

Software engineers often put tests into code that are impossible by design.  For example, suppose you do some calculation that gives some result x, known to be greater than 0.  Nevertheless, you'll often see code like:

/* At this point, x is >= 0 */
if (x < 0) then
    print "This can't happen: x < 0" then stop.


And thanks to agile and code reviews when the reviewers see it, they make you strip it out of your code because it can't happen! 

We are a ways off topic. So, being a mod, I'll take last word... don't work at places like that if you can help it. Back on topic please
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8198
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4335
  • Likes Given: 1335
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #171 on: 06/13/2017 07:06 AM »
The fairing envelope is there for a reason. It is the space inside the fairing that will absolutely never be impacted by fairing separation, as determined by fairing separation testing on the ground. The fairing envelope is for that reason always slightly smaller than the actual volume inside the fairing. As long as the X-37B fits inside the fairing envelope (even if it is an exact fit with the envelope) than there is no need whatsoever to check a clean separation by any other means than 'just' telemetry. No live stream camera's needed, let alone GoPro's.
This kind of thinking always makes me a bit nervous.   I agree that it should not be any problem.  But especially if this is the first payload that actually touches the envelope, you might want to check.
No need to. The envelope boundary is determined with a very comfortable margin. The payload is just as safe in touching the envelope as it is being fully inside the envelope. Things only become unpredictable once the payload is (partly) outside the payload envelope. That will not be the case for X-37B however.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 641
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #172 on: 06/13/2017 08:31 AM »
I really think that people need to take some sort of chill pill about this matter. If the X-37B could not fit, comfortably and with safety margin, inside the Falcon-9's PLF, then this launch would not be happening.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Lumina

I have two theories regarding the announcement of this no-bid contract two months before launch.

A) That it was part of the settlement of the court case, and that this part had remained unannounced pending SpaceX hitting other certification milestones and successful DOD launches. That is, perhaps the contract was concluded a long time ago but had remained undisclosed because it was associated with the out-of-court settlement.

B) That SpaceX, as part of the process of becoming a launch provider for USAF, had/has to demonstrate that it could launch at short notice; under this theory, the X37B launch is a pop quiz and SpaceX is being "tested".

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #174 on: 06/19/2017 11:27 AM »
Not B

Online jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 754
  • Likes Given: 112
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #175 on: 06/21/2017 06:00 PM »
Quote
SecAf Wilson just said SpaceX would "go up again on August 17" so presumably that's the exact date for the X-37B launch.


https://mobile.twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/877538416593960960
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 06:01 PM by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
  • US
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 1648
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #176 on: 06/28/2017 02:06 PM »
Spaceflight Now is showing this on August 28.

Offline smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #177 on: 07/12/2017 01:39 PM »
As the second part of the year seems to be pretty packed with launches, a chart like 'FPIP' could be useful.
So here is my version.
Notes:
The chart shows Falcon launches (blue marks) from Eastern Range (SLC-39A and SLC-40) and from Western Range (SLC-4E)
along with launches by ULA and Orbital (red marks) from the same ranges - for possible scheduling conflicts.
Light brown shadings show ongoing repair work on SLC-40 ("A") and pad modifications at SLC-39A ("B" & "C").
Red frame shows closing period for Eastern Range maintenance.
Green vertical line - current date.
And the last note - on the difference between blue and red marks.
All the ULA launches have dates. Of course they are flexible (subject to change), but the planned date is defined. Therefore the red marks show these planned dates for ULA/Orbital launches, at least what we know currently.
This is not the case with SpaceX' plans, and the blue marks are mostly (with two exceptions) guesswork. This is illustrated on the example of X-37: for this launch we have two dates (Aug 17 and Aug 28), and I showed this interval with dotted blue frame. However, I did not do this for the rest of launches, this would make chart unreadable.
Basically, this chart shows only two specific moments:
a tight "knot" of 3 launches from Cape in August and a similar "knot" from VAFB in September.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22455
  • Liked: 767
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #178 on: 07/26/2017 05:55 PM »
check out the former OPF-1, now home to the x-37B!

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXBI2Pfggx5/
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
  • US
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 1648
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #179 on: 07/26/2017 06:52 PM »
Quote
Changes to Eastern Range launch schedule: SpaceX CRS-12 now no earlier than 8/14; SpaceX X-37B NET 9/7; ULA NROL-52 NET 9/25.

https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/890273595166949377

Tags: