https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1072551776673501186
The FOMS Space Facility for Orbital Remote Manufacturing (SpaceFORM) experiment, supported by the ISS National Lab, NASA, the Small Business Innovation Research program, and private funding, is scheduled to launch on SpaceX CRS-17. SpaceFORM, which is covered by an issued U.S. patent, is capable of producing up to 50 km of optical fiber in a single flight.
Thorlabs in orbit: Space station hosts optical fiber experimentQuoteInside that 21-inch-by-18-inch-by-11-inch box is a self-contained factory using the near-weightlessness of space to pull high quality optic fiber from highly technical glass....As Saad talked about the project last week on the upper floors of Thorlabs' headquarters on Sparta Avenue, more than 250 miles higher still, astronauts were installing the third box in a series of four that make up this stage of experiments.The third box was delivered to the ISS on Dec. 8, aboard the SpaceX-16 mission and returns to Earth early next year when the docking vehicle leaves the station. A fourth box will be delivered aboard SpaceX-17, due to launch in March.Saad heads up the Thorlabs team that is working with a team from a California-based company, Made in Space, which is providing the mechanics of the glass-pulling "factory" in the box....The glass being used in the ISS experiments is made from a group of fluoride compounds.The difference between glass fiber made from silica and fiber drawn from fluoride is the wavelengths of light that can be transmitted along the fiber....Saad said the first two flights of the production box on ISS did not produce any fiber because of mechanical issues....The result was blobs of glass, rather than strings of glass.In this third box, the glass is pulled along and it's hoped strands of fiber will result. The box has three "pre-forms," specific size, shape and weight pieces of pure glass, which can be pulled into a total of 1.5 kilometers (0.93 miles) of optic fiber....
Inside that 21-inch-by-18-inch-by-11-inch box is a self-contained factory using the near-weightlessness of space to pull high quality optic fiber from highly technical glass....As Saad talked about the project last week on the upper floors of Thorlabs' headquarters on Sparta Avenue, more than 250 miles higher still, astronauts were installing the third box in a series of four that make up this stage of experiments.The third box was delivered to the ISS on Dec. 8, aboard the SpaceX-16 mission and returns to Earth early next year when the docking vehicle leaves the station. A fourth box will be delivered aboard SpaceX-17, due to launch in March.Saad heads up the Thorlabs team that is working with a team from a California-based company, Made in Space, which is providing the mechanics of the glass-pulling "factory" in the box....The glass being used in the ISS experiments is made from a group of fluoride compounds.The difference between glass fiber made from silica and fiber drawn from fluoride is the wavelengths of light that can be transmitted along the fiber....Saad said the first two flights of the production box on ISS did not produce any fiber because of mechanical issues....The result was blobs of glass, rather than strings of glass.In this third box, the glass is pulled along and it's hoped strands of fiber will result. The box has three "pre-forms," specific size, shape and weight pieces of pure glass, which can be pulled into a total of 1.5 kilometers (0.93 miles) of optic fiber....
Maybe three ZBLAN experiments will be on SpX-17 then...Quote from: gongora on 12/26/2018 07:07 pmThorlabs in orbit: Space station hosts optical fiber experimentQuoteInside that 21-inch-by-18-inch-by-11-inch box is a self-contained factory using the near-weightlessness of space to pull high quality optic fiber from highly technical glass....As Saad talked about the project last week on the upper floors of Thorlabs' headquarters on Sparta Avenue, more than 250 miles higher still, astronauts were installing the third box in a series of four that make up this stage of experiments.The third box was delivered to the ISS on Dec. 8, aboard the SpaceX-16 mission and returns to Earth early next year when the docking vehicle leaves the station. A fourth box will be delivered aboard SpaceX-17, due to launch in March.Saad heads up the Thorlabs team that is working with a team from a California-based company, Made in Space, which is providing the mechanics of the glass-pulling "factory" in the box....The glass being used in the ISS experiments is made from a group of fluoride compounds.The difference between glass fiber made from silica and fiber drawn from fluoride is the wavelengths of light that can be transmitted along the fiber....Saad said the first two flights of the production box on ISS did not produce any fiber because of mechanical issues....The result was blobs of glass, rather than strings of glass.In this third box, the glass is pulled along and it's hoped strands of fiber will result. The box has three "pre-forms," specific size, shape and weight pieces of pure glass, which can be pulled into a total of 1.5 kilometers (0.93 miles) of optic fiber....I'm not sure the 3-D printing thread is really the place for this stuff, I don't think any of them are 3-D printers. Do we have another thread for in-space manufacturing, or maybe the optical fiber experiments could use their own thread?
These promising results led to the development of POC’s Orbital Fiber Optic Production Module, which is scheduled for launch to the ISS on SpaceX’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS)-17 mission in 2019.
https://ria.ru/20190115/1549361597.htmlGoogle translate:Quote"The launch of the Dragon cargo ship is scheduled for March 16," the agency’s source said.
"The launch of the Dragon cargo ship is scheduled for March 16," the agency’s source said.
New FCC filings:0023-EX-ST-2019 - CRS-17 Dragon Tracking (Starts 4/12/19)0026-EX-ST-2019 - Arabsat 6A Falcon Heavy Launch (Starts 3/7/19)0028-EX-ST-2019 - Arabsat 6A recovery filings for both landing zones and the droneship (Starts 3/7/19)
So I was looking at the updated list of available cores on Reddit and I realized I have no idea which core could be used for CRS-17. So far, NASA seemed to allow a reused booster only if it had just one LEO NASA mission under its belt. But all currently available boosters are either already assigned to other missions or have done 2+ launches.Some possibilities and thoughts:-There could be a new core heading to McGregor any day now since SpaceX hasn't produced a new core in the last 7 weeks or so (2 months to prepare the core for CRS-17 might be tight, though)-Maybe there already is a new core for CRS-17 somewhere but we somehow missed it (not very likely)-CRS-17 will use a booster that's already been used twice (B1048 flew on two LEO missions and has been moved to the Cape some time ago, so it could work)-CRS-17 will use the DM-1 booster (would require a fairly quick turnaround + it's risky with all the DM-1 delays)To me, B1048.3 seems like the most likely option. What do you think?
I'd guess it was probably meant to be 50.2, but no chance of that now. I'd say 51.2 is a strong possibility, since I think a ~2 month turnaround isn't outside of the realm of possibility (the record low turnaround time (72 days) was on CRS-15). Otherwise, it's probably going to be a new core. But could be a 3rd flight. That's really up to NASA.
How badly damaged is B1050?Is it retired, or will it undergo extensive maintenance for a potential reflight?
I've assumed that the impact from tipping over caused internal structural damage that wasn't visible from the outside. It cracked the interstage open like an egg, so I can imagine that kind of stress wasn't kind to the tankage. Also half of the engines were immersed in salt water for a couple of days.
The Space Test Program-Houston 6 (STP-H6) payload is inside the Space Station Processing Facility high bay at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on March 19, 2019. It is being prepared for its move to the SpaceX facility where it will be will be stowed in the trunk of the Dragon spacecraft for delivery to the International Space Station on SpaceX’s 17th Commercial Resupply Services mission (CRS-17) for NASA. STP-H6 is an x-ray communication investigation that will be used to perform a space-based demonstration of a new technology for generating beams of modulated x-rays. This technology may be useful for providing efficient communication to deep space probes, or communicating with hypersonic vehicles where plasma sheaths prevent traditional radio communications. CRS-17 is scheduled to launch from Space Launch Complex 40 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in late April. Photo credit: NASA/Ben Smegelsky
All infos regarding SpX-17 are removed from the NASA TV schedule.Do we have new information about this launch?
Is NASA really planning on sending Cygnus and Dragon to the ISS just a week apart? I expected NASA to postpone one one of them by a few weeks, but both launch dates seem quite firm.
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3) and Space Test Program-Houston 6 (STP-H6) are in view installed in the truck of SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft inside the SpaceX facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on March 23, 2019. OCO-3 and STP-H6 will be delivered to the International Space Station on SpaceX’s 17th Commercial Resupply Services mission (CRS-17) for NASA. STP-H6 is an x-ray communication investigation that will be used to perform a space-based demonstration of a new technology for generating beams of modulated x-rays. This technology may be useful for providing efficient communication to deep space probes, or communicating with hypersonic vehicles where plasma sheaths prevent traditional radio communications. OCO-3 will be robotically installed on the exterior of the space station’s Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility Unit, where it will measure and map carbon dioxide from space to provide further understanding of the relationship between carbon and climate. CRS-17 is scheduled to launch from Space Launch Complex 40 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in late April. Photo credit: SpaceX
Falcon 9 is scheduled to launch the next Dragon resupply mission to the ISS, CRS-17 from pad 40 on April 26 at 5:55am EDT.
CRS-13 used the Dragon from CRS-11CRS-14 used the Dragon from CRS-8CRS-15 CRS-16 used the Dragon from CRS-10CRS-17 Can anyone fill in the gaps for me for CRS-15 and CRS-17?
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 04/12/2019 09:14 pmCRS-13 used the Dragon from CRS-11CRS-14 used the Dragon from CRS-8CRS-15 CRS-16 used the Dragon from CRS-10CRS-17 Can anyone fill in the gaps for me for CRS-15 and CRS-17?CRS-15 used the Dragon from CRS-9...
Launch is slipping according to Dan Cooper. He changed it from NET April 26 to "April 26 the very earliest", then to NET late April at about 4am Eastern, which corresponds to ~ April 30. (Launch gets earlier 22-26 min. per day.)http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
Quote from: PM3 on 04/18/2019 06:57 pmLaunch is slipping according to Dan Cooper. He changed it from NET April 26 to "April 26 the very earliest", then to NET late April at about 4am Eastern, which corresponds to ~ April 30. (Launch gets earlier 22-26 min. per day.)http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html How is "NET April 26" to "April 26 at the very earliest" a change?
How is "NET April 26" to "April 26 at the very earliest" a change?
Why were there rumors about SpX-17 slipping four more days before the NOTAMs came in?
So am I correct in assuming this slip means no more noctilucent exhaust?
SpaceX will take advantage of the additional time to perform a static fire test and pre-flight checkouts. Falcon 9 and Dragon are on track to be flight ready for an earlier launch attempt, however, April 30 is the most viable date for both NASA and SpaceX due to station and orbital mechanics constraints.
My best guess is that they're running behind schedule.That's been my go-to theory when it comes to a Falcon 9 mission slipping without any warning.
Pretty decent odds that the Dragon 2 anomaly today will push this flight back a while for a couple of reasons:1) They'll want to clear any commonality with cargo dragon.2) The landing zone for the booster is going to be off limits for a while.
Quote from: yokem55 on 04/21/2019 12:28 amPretty decent odds that the Dragon 2 anomaly today will push this flight back a while for a couple of reasons:1) They'll want to clear any commonality with cargo dragon.2) The landing zone for the booster is going to be off limits for a while.Worth noting the test stand for Crew Dragon is not literally on LZ-1 but on an adjacent facility exclusively built for that.
The Dragon Facility is right next to the access road to LZ-1 and 2. Even if either of the pads aren’t contaminated, the road probably is. Looking unlikely they’ll be able to RTLS until cleanup is finished.
Quote from: TGMetsFan98 on 04/21/2019 09:26 amThe Dragon Facility is right next to the access road to LZ-1 and 2. Even if either of the pads aren’t contaminated, the road probably is. Looking unlikely they’ll be able to RTLS until cleanup is finished.Rocket exhaust is going to de-contaminate the pad quite rapidly.
The launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.
Quote from: cebri on 04/22/2019 03:35 pmThe launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmQuote from: cebri on 04/22/2019 03:35 pmThe launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.
0723-EX-ST-2019 ASDS permit for CRS-17, 28 km downrange.
28km downrange, super close ASDS landing now since LZ-1 is unavailable. Quote from: strawwalker on 04/23/2019 12:03 am0723-EX-ST-2019 ASDS permit for CRS-17, 28 km downrange.
Quote from: Lar on 04/22/2019 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmQuote from: cebri on 04/22/2019 03:35 pmThe launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.I based my comments on my experience with the Air Force. Take the following example:An F-16 powered by a XYZ manufactured engine crashes. Step one: Identify what F-16s are of similar configuration and either ground them immediately or alert the bases, who may/may not ground their potentially affected aircraft.Next, what was the system that failed first? It turns out that the initial failure was in the engine itself.So, all F-16s powered by that engine are subject to be grounded at least until the root cause of the failure is identified. After the component failure in the engine is isolated then you can fine tune the groundings.BUT, F-16s that are powered by different engines aren't subject to the grounding.Again, this is a hypothetical, but the process is pretty similar to my past experiences. And yes, the Air Force isn't NASA, but their safety organizations are fairly similar.Have a good one,Mike
A very reasonable approach, however, we are talking about entirely different levels of risk. If an F16 has an engine failure in flight the pilot can still bail out and you would only lose the airplane, worst case scenario the pilot is killed and you lose a 20 million dollar aircraft. If a D1 were to experience a similar event while attached to the ISS, you could lose the whole station (+100 billion US dollars) and probably the astronaut's lives if they don't have enough time to evacuate + other unwanted consequences. I would presume NASA would take the more cautious/conservative approach.
Quote from: Lar on 04/22/2019 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmDragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.NASA disagrees with you:https://spacenews.com/nasa-moves-ahead-with-cargo-dragon-launch-after-crew-dragon-anomaly/
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmDragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.
Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.
Quote from: Lar on 04/22/2019 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmQuote from: cebri on 04/22/2019 03:35 pmThe launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.NASA disagrees with you:https://spacenews.com/nasa-moves-ahead-with-cargo-dragon-launch-after-crew-dragon-anomaly/
The fact that NASA is, for now, proceeding with the cargo Dragon mission suggests the problem is isolated to the SuperDraco thrusters, which are not used on the cargo version of Dragon. However, industry sources say that the CRS-17 mission could still be delayed depending on what the ongoing investigation might turn up in the coming days, as well as any concerns raised by the station’s international partners.
Quote from: woods170 on 04/23/2019 11:37 amQuote from: Lar on 04/22/2019 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmQuote from: cebri on 04/22/2019 03:35 pmThe launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.NASA disagrees with you:https://spacenews.com/nasa-moves-ahead-with-cargo-dragon-launch-after-crew-dragon-anomaly/Yet there is this from that article. My bolding.QuoteThe fact that NASA is, for now, proceeding with the cargo Dragon mission suggests the problem is isolated to the SuperDraco thrusters, which are not used on the cargo version of Dragon. However, industry sources say that the CRS-17 mission could still be delayed depending on what the ongoing investigation might turn up in the coming days, as well as any concerns raised by the station’s international partners.
Quote from: Star One on 04/23/2019 03:18 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/23/2019 11:37 amQuote from: Lar on 04/22/2019 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmQuote from: cebri on 04/22/2019 03:35 pmThe launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.NASA disagrees with you:https://spacenews.com/nasa-moves-ahead-with-cargo-dragon-launch-after-crew-dragon-anomaly/Yet there is this from that article. My bolding.QuoteThe fact that NASA is, for now, proceeding with the cargo Dragon mission suggests the problem is isolated to the SuperDraco thrusters, which are not used on the cargo version of Dragon. However, industry sources say that the CRS-17 mission could still be delayed depending on what the ongoing investigation might turn up in the coming days, as well as any concerns raised by the station’s international partners."Industry sources" are not in control of the launch decision. Only NASA and SpaceX are. It's completely irrelevant what "industry sources" think.
Quote from: woods170 on 04/23/2019 06:19 pmQuote from: Star One on 04/23/2019 03:18 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/23/2019 11:37 amQuote from: Lar on 04/22/2019 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 04/22/2019 05:00 pmQuote from: cebri on 04/22/2019 03:35 pmThe launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.Dragon V2 anomaly does not affect Dragon V1 because they are different spacecraft. Unless the V2 fault tree identifies a common component between the 2 versions as cause of the anomaly I highly doubt that a delay would occur.I see it the other way around, a delay until the fault is determined AND all other causes ruled out... followed by either a fix to V1 or proof of dissimilar systems so dissimilar the fault can't occur.NASA disagrees with you:https://spacenews.com/nasa-moves-ahead-with-cargo-dragon-launch-after-crew-dragon-anomaly/Yet there is this from that article. My bolding.QuoteThe fact that NASA is, for now, proceeding with the cargo Dragon mission suggests the problem is isolated to the SuperDraco thrusters, which are not used on the cargo version of Dragon. However, industry sources say that the CRS-17 mission could still be delayed depending on what the ongoing investigation might turn up in the coming days, as well as any concerns raised by the station’s international partners."Industry sources" are not in control of the launch decision. Only NASA and SpaceX are. It's completely irrelevant what "industry sources" think.Yeah, industry sources could be Jim and we all know what he would say
He’s more knowledgable than many though.
QuoteThe Space Test Program-Houston 6 (STP-H6) payload is inside the Space Station Processing Facility high bay at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on March 19, 2019. It is being prepared for its move to the SpaceX facility where it will be will be stowed in the trunk of the Dragon spacecraft for delivery to the International Space Station on SpaceX’s 17th Commercial Resupply Services mission (CRS-17) for NASA. STP-H6 is an x-ray communication investigation that will be used to perform a space-based demonstration of a new technology for generating beams of modulated x-rays. This technology may be useful for providing efficient communication to deep space probes, or communicating with hypersonic vehicles where plasma sheaths prevent traditional radio communications. Photo credit: NASA/Ben Smegelskyhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/albums/72157690594188053
The Space Test Program-Houston 6 (STP-H6) payload is inside the Space Station Processing Facility high bay at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on March 19, 2019. It is being prepared for its move to the SpaceX facility where it will be will be stowed in the trunk of the Dragon spacecraft for delivery to the International Space Station on SpaceX’s 17th Commercial Resupply Services mission (CRS-17) for NASA. STP-H6 is an x-ray communication investigation that will be used to perform a space-based demonstration of a new technology for generating beams of modulated x-rays. This technology may be useful for providing efficient communication to deep space probes, or communicating with hypersonic vehicles where plasma sheaths prevent traditional radio communications. Photo credit: NASA/Ben Smegelsky
That's quite the quote tree...
Quote from: intelati on 04/23/2019 08:01 pmThat's quite the quote tree...I think 7 nested quotes is the upper limit allowed in this version of SMF?I think I've tried and failed 8 and 9 nested quotes.
https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/1122909070275555329Quote#SpaceX #Falcon9 has been lowered, rolled back away from #pad40 to hangar where techs now attaching the #CargoDragon for @NASA #CRS17 resupply launch to #ISS May 1, 358 AM ET & #OCISLY droneship landing 8 min later just offshore of @jettypark
#SpaceX #Falcon9 has been lowered, rolled back away from #pad40 to hangar where techs now attaching the #CargoDragon for @NASA #CRS17 resupply launch to #ISS May 1, 358 AM ET & #OCISLY droneship landing 8 min later just offshore of @jettypark
So far so good. Thursday is key of course.Updated the article:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/electrical-issue-station-dragon-crs-17/
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/01/2019 10:52 amSo far so good. Thursday is key of course.Updated the article:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/electrical-issue-station-dragon-crs-17/A Friday launch would occur around 3:12 AM EDT.Will NASA wait for the ISS report before doing the late load?How late on Thursday can they make the decision and still make the launch?Didn't Musk say SpaceX wanted to be able to roll out and launch in a few hours?This could be a test if they're at that point.
Late load will occur Thursday morning.
Direct quote from the NET:QuoteThis is the Launch Director on the countdown NET. Called a hold for an issue with our droneship. Unable to maintain power to allow us to proceed with launch on time, and we simply ran out of time. At this point we're proceeding with propellant offload. Once we complete that and TEA/TEB sweeps, we'll prepare to lower the vehicle. And we'll address a helium leak on the second stage QD interface. And we'll set up for a 24 hour recycle.
This is the Launch Director on the countdown NET. Called a hold for an issue with our droneship. Unable to maintain power to allow us to proceed with launch on time, and we simply ran out of time. At this point we're proceeding with propellant offload. Once we complete that and TEA/TEB sweeps, we'll prepare to lower the vehicle. And we'll address a helium leak on the second stage QD interface. And we'll set up for a 24 hour recycle.
Quote from: theinternetftw on 05/03/2019 07:08 amDirect quote from the NET:QuoteThis is the Launch Director on the countdown NET. Called a hold for an issue with our droneship. Unable to maintain power to allow us to proceed with launch on time, and we simply ran out of time. At this point we're proceeding with propellant offload. Once we complete that and TEA/TEB sweeps, we'll prepare to lower the vehicle. And we'll address a helium leak on the second stage QD interface. And we'll set up for a 24 hour recycle.I think that‘s the long awaited scrub due to recovery related systems.No more expending boosters if the droneship isn‘t ready.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/03/2019 07:15 amI think that‘s the long awaited scrub due to recovery related systems.No more expending boosters if the droneship isn‘t ready.On a NASA ISS mission no less What's the world coming to?
I think that‘s the long awaited scrub due to recovery related systems.No more expending boosters if the droneship isn‘t ready.
I see one problem here that they probably can't easily reconfigure the booster's flight plan that late in the countdown to an expendable trajectory, so the booster might crash into the droneship (into the equipment on board, or the railings) if the position is a bit off or some communication equipment required to lead the booster to the ASDS doesn't work.
Launch on Saturday, 4 May, will be at 02:48:58 EDT (0648:58 UTC). Checking on when berthing will be with new launch date.
Quote from: codav on 05/03/2019 09:33 amI see one problem here that they probably can't easily reconfigure the booster's flight plan that late in the countdown to an expendable trajectory, so the booster might crash into the droneship (into the equipment on board, or the railings) if the position is a bit off or some communication equipment required to lead the booster to the ASDS doesn't work.Is there any communication to lead the booster to the ASDS? I thought they just both aimed for the same GPS coordinates?
Remember, there were two, not just one, issues that scrubbed the launch on 3 May: 1. Drone Ship power issue and 2. Helium leak on ground side of the Stage 2 Quick Disconnect.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 05/03/2019 04:02 pmRemember, there were two, not just one, issues that scrubbed the launch on 3 May: 1. Drone Ship power issue and 2. Helium leak on ground side of the Stage 2 Quick Disconnect.I think they found the leak after finishing the helium load? Might be a minor leak that would not necessarily result in a scrub and only shows in the data on a closed line, but definitely something to check out if they have to scrub anyhow. And it’s the reason why they’re lowering the rocket, which might come with further requirements than detanking for a 24h scrub.
They might also need to check/refresh the late-load items, which would also need Falcon horizontal (at SLC-40, anyway).
Quote from: Joffan on 05/03/2019 04:32 pmThey might also need to check/refresh the late-load items, which would also need Falcon horizontal (at SLC-40, anyway).They said at the press conference yesterday they wouldn't need to go horizontal or replace anything onboard for a one day scrub.
Quote from: gongora on 05/03/2019 04:38 pmQuote from: Joffan on 05/03/2019 04:32 pmThey might also need to check/refresh the late-load items, which would also need Falcon horizontal (at SLC-40, anyway).They said at the press conference yesterday they wouldn't need to go horizontal or replace anything onboard for a one day scrub.I presume that was if it was a weather scrub. If it was a technical issue, they might want to do that...
It's been hinted at above, but I think the "near to shore" position of the ASDS had a role here: even if they'd be okay with the risk of hitting the drone ship and crashing into the sea at the normal recovery location, there could be complicating factors doing so close to land. Much greater risk of debris washing up on beaches, for one. Also bureaucratic issues such as being bound by the preexisting hazard notices, etc.
Quote from: meekGee on 05/03/2019 08:01 amQuote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/03/2019 07:15 amI think that‘s the long awaited scrub due to recovery related systems.No more expending boosters if the droneship isn‘t ready.On a NASA ISS mission no less What's the world coming to?I'm trying to remember if STS was ever scrubbed due to weather preventing SRB recovery. I'm almost certain there were scrubs caused by Orbiter abort landing site weather issues.
I’m hoping the velocity reading on screen is wrong - it’s showing 7535 m/sec, but circular orbital velocity at 214 km altitude is 7776 m/sec. (Also, doesn’t the velocity curve usually go all the way to the red line?) Did anyone hear a “nominal orbit” call?
Quote from: obi-wan on 05/04/2019 07:10 amI’m hoping the velocity reading on screen is wrong - it’s showing 7535 m/sec, but circular orbital velocity at 214 km altitude is 7776 m/sec. (Also, doesn’t the velocity curve usually go all the way to the red line?) Did anyone hear a “nominal orbit” call?SpaceX commentator at T+09:16 confirmed a good orbit
First Stage Landing Statsas of 05/04/2019---------------------------------------Successes/Attempts 38/46*F9 Successes/Attempts 34/40FH Successes/Attempts 4/6*OCISLY 17/23*JRTI 7/8CC LZ-1 11/12CC LZ-2 2/2VA LZ-4 1/1---------------------------------------* FH-2 Core B1055.1 landed successfully on OSCILY, but subsequently toppled and was lost. Is not counted as a success in these numbers.
I’m amazed that this stuff is even remotely predictable. 🚀 ❓❓❓Here’s @flightclubio’s pre-launch prediction overlaid onto my long exposure image of the CRS-17 launch/landing. It was accurate enough that the real burns mostly obscure the prediction lines. Wow.
Wow, best landing views so far!https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1124568940917788673
Just mentioned on the webcast, the helium leak didn‘t threaten launch yesterday...
The helium leak Todd referenced occurred with ground-based equipment. According to SpaceX, the company was monitoring the leak in the supply to helium on-board the rocket, but probably could have worked through the issue. Engineers wouldn't have known for sure until the last minutes of the countdown, however.
Hans: Helium leak on ground side last night. Didn't get to the point last night to determine if that would have a been a scrub situation (not enough Helium onboard). Helium leak was not a reason for the scrub but was fixed after the scrub.
Quote from: cscott on 05/03/2019 12:13 pmIt's been hinted at above, but I think the "near to shore" position of the ASDS had a role here: even if they'd be okay with the risk of hitting the drone ship and crashing into the sea at the normal recovery location, there could be complicating factors doing so close to land. Much greater risk of debris washing up on beaches, for one. Also bureaucratic issues such as being bound by the preexisting hazard notices, etc.Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/03/2019 01:12 pmQuote from: meekGee on 05/03/2019 08:01 amQuote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/03/2019 07:15 amI think that‘s the long awaited scrub due to recovery related systems.No more expending boosters if the droneship isn‘t ready.On a NASA ISS mission no less What's the world coming to?I'm trying to remember if STS was ever scrubbed due to weather preventing SRB recovery. I'm almost certain there were scrubs caused by Orbiter abort landing site weather issues.Given that SpX-16 did just that in December, I would imagine they know how to handle a near-shore water landing. Also, the Hispasat 30W-6 launch last March landed a booster in the ocean where an ASDS would have been if the weather had been better.Space Shuttle TAL site weather was a launch commit criterion, since it could affect LOC. I believe the first scrub for TAL weather was STS-61C in January 1986. STS-74 and 113 also scrubbed for TAL weather.https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/reference/TM-2011-216142.pdf
50th v1.2 launch (already!). A 51st Falcon 9 v1.2 was, of course, lost in the 2016 AMOS 6 WDR explosion.Does anyone know if the NASA stream of the CRS-17 launch was saved anywhere? The attached video was extracted from the NASA feed, which provided nice clean views without numbers all over the screen and unencumbered audio.First Stage Landing Statsas of 05/04/2019---------------------------------------Successes/Attempts 38/46*F9 Successes/Attempts 34/40FH Successes/Attempts 4/6*OCISLY 17/23*JRTI 7/8CC LZ-1 11/12CC LZ-2 2/2VA LZ-4 1/1---------------------------------------* FH-2 Core B1055.1 landed successfully on OSCILY, but subsequently toppled and was lost. Is not counted as a success in these numbers. - Ed Kyle
Sorry if this is considered off-topic, but here in the northeast US, the ISS will have a couple of visible passes early Monday morning. Is Dragon visible as it approaches ISS? We've had a lot of cloudy skies here recently, but we should be mostly clear Monday morning, so I'd like to catch it if it's visible.
These numbers are significantly higher than what you present, since you're mixing the development phase failures with the operational phase.It's a bit like saying that a certain disease kills 30% of the population, whereas in fact it used to kill 50%, then a cure was found, and now it kills 0.1%. That little bit of extra knowledge completely changes the understanding of the situation.
Quote from: meekGee on 05/04/2019 06:50 pmThese numbers are significantly higher than what you present, since you're mixing the development phase failures with the operational phase.It's a bit like saying that a certain disease kills 30% of the population, whereas in fact it used to kill 50%, then a cure was found, and now it kills 0.1%. That little bit of extra knowledge completely changes the understanding of the situation.I just present the totals. If you try to subdivide them, the division point can always be argued. Meanwhile, over the very long term, the absolute total percentages are going to likely approach the "operational" results regardless. I like to see that number, because it certainly told the true tale at the beginning (0 for 3, 2 for 5, etc. or whatever it was) and now it is showing the steady improvement that resulted from all of those trials. And, by the way, aren't they still in the "development phase", since, for example, they didn't have the right octograbber tool to save B1055, they lost control of B1050, etc? They've lost 2 of their last 8 landing attempts I think. - Ed Kyle
SpaceX launch photos by Ben Cooper
This photo nicely shows the different intensities of 1st stage burns. Throttling down before Max-Q, then pretty instantaneously up to full throttle.
And the reentry burn begins thin, then gets stronger, and is thin again before cutoff. Thin line = 1 engine, thick line = 3?
Maybe someone can clarify the meaning/context of „Desmo“ or so I kept hearing during communication between MCC and ISS on the capture webcast.Google search didn‘t help...Thanks a lot!
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/06/2019 11:13 amMaybe someone can clarify the meaning/context of „Desmo“ or so I kept hearing during communication between MCC and ISS on the capture webcast.Google search didn‘t help...Thanks a lot!What you most likely heard was "decimal", not "desmo".
With respect to the cable still attached to Dragon ...no one noticed it missing post launch pad cleanup ?
Could the cable interfere with the GNC door closure, post departure?If it's waving around in zero G, it could easily foul the opening.Is it likely they will consider some corrective action?Does the GNC closure happen pre or post the deorbit burn?I can see a case where if the door doesn't close on the first attempt, they might perform a thruster firing to try and move it out the way, and then try again?
Quote from: litton4 on 05/06/2019 01:29 pmCould the cable interfere with the GNC door closure, post departure?If it's waving around in zero G, it could easily foul the opening.Is it likely they will consider some corrective action?Does the GNC closure happen pre or post the deorbit burn?I can see a case where if the door doesn't close on the first attempt, they might perform a thruster firing to try and move it out the way, and then try again?Fortunately, they have plenty of time to think about it before Dragon departs the ISS. If necessary, they might be able to robotically detach or cut the cable prior to unberthing.
Quote from: flyright on 05/06/2019 04:09 pmQuote from: litton4 on 05/06/2019 01:29 pmCould the cable interfere with the GNC door closure, post departure?If it's waving around in zero G, it could easily foul the opening.Is it likely they will consider some corrective action?Does the GNC closure happen pre or post the deorbit burn?I can see a case where if the door doesn't close on the first attempt, they might perform a thruster firing to try and move it out the way, and then try again?Fortunately, they have plenty of time to think about it before Dragon departs the ISS. If necessary, they might be able to robotically detach or cut the cable prior to unberthing.Yeah, maybe Dextre can pull the lead off.
Could it perhaps be the circled feature? It doesn't appear to line up exactly, but this could be a trick of perspective. The feature appears to contrast with the surrounding landscape.
Could also be a chip in the external scratch pane of that particular cupola window.
In this image tweeted out by astronaut Anne McClain I found something eye-catching: https://twitter.com/AstroAnnimal/status/1125761906269147137If you zoom into the Dragon, you see a weird feature next to its CBM, which appears to be at short distance to it. At first I thought it was a ground feature, although its contours didn't seem to match very well the terrain below, even if it was an open mine or dump ground. Seemed too crisp though.(snip)So it seems like there's something next to the Dragon? Or am I seeing things?
With SpaceX scrub, NASA again demonstrates commitment to innovation.."The agency is investing in keeping the United States on the leading edge."ERIC BERGER - 5/7/2019, 6:54 AMhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/with-spacex-scrub-nasa-again-demonstrates-commitment-to-innovation/?comments=1
I still don't think it's something on the ground
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1135984202678120448
Judging from the picture, I guess they lost the ripped off umbilical before the hottest phase of reentry. Would have been visible right in the middle of the picture, right?
I think the tail end of it still is visible in the picture.
