SpaceX F9 : CRS SpX-17 : May 4, 2019 - DISCUSSION

[TGMetsFan98]

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.

[Eerie]

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.

Rocket exhaust is going to de-contaminate the pad quite rapidly.

[Vettedrmr]

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.

Can we learn anything from Boeing's issue last year to guess how much effort it takes to clean up this kind of mess?

Not a good day, but could have been much worse.

Have a good one,
Mike

[RocketLover0119]

To get things back on topic with this mission, in a video published by US Launch Report, the TEL was erect yesterday, presumably to pick up the reaction frame and roll back to the hanger:



It is possible the launch could be delayed even more due to the anomaly, but who knows

[smoliarm]

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.

Rocket exhaust is going to de-contaminate the pad quite rapidly.

No, "Rocket exhaust" is NOT an EPA-approved method of decontamination

However, there are plenty of other methods which are approved.
Most of them are in one or two treatment steps, and take as I recall same one or two two work-shifts.
So it seems quick, but -
But this is not the whole story, because there are post-treatment checkups and formal certification (acceptance).
This could take quite long.
Nevertheless, I would hope all the protocols for MMH (or Aerozine) spill cleanup - they are quite routine at CCAFS. Just because those spills did happen there and not once.

One more thing - these cleanups are really expensive.

The bottom line: if SpaceX had PROPER insurance for this kind of mishaps - I'd hope the site will be back in normal operation mode in a week.

[Rondaz]

SpaceX preps for Cargo Dragon, Falcon Heavy launches despite setbacks

By Eric Ralph Posted on April 22, 2019

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-upcoming-launches-spring-2019/?mc_cid=0cd90c4ca8&mc_eid=60eb267dc3

[cebri]

The launch date has not been affected by the "anomaly" yet.

[russianhalo117]

The 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.

[Lar]

The 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.

[Vettedrmr]

The 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

[ATPTourFan]

28km downrange, super close ASDS landing now since LZ-1 is unavailable.

0723-EX-ST-2019 ASDS permit for CRS-17, 28 km downrange.

[Comga]

28km downrange, super close ASDS landing now since LZ-1 is unavailable.

0723-EX-ST-2019 ASDS permit for CRS-17, 28 km downrange.

Calculations for the STP-2 core, which is supposed to land on the ASDS 27 km downrange, indicate that if one can get a few meters above the beach the first stage will remain visible all the way down.  About a the top third should be visible, conditions permitting, even once it is standing on the ASDS.

[cebri]

The 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.

[woods170]

The 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/

[Vettedrmr]

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.

Good points about the difference in potential consequences.  One thing I think I'll learn out of this is more about how the various systems in a docked spacecraft are "safed".

Also, as I said in another post, NASA has the responsibility&authority for CRS-17's release or delay; we have the luxury of not really having any skin in the game, and we also have the limitations of not having the information NASA and SpaceX have to make the decision.

Have a good one,
Mike

[Lar]

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/

(fan) That's great. I would be glad if my prediction was wrong and that position sticks.

[Star One]

The 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.

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.

[woods170]

The 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.

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.

"Industry sources" are not in control of the launch decision. Only NASA and SpaceX are.
It's completely irrelevant what "industry sources" think.

[Alexphysics]

The 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.

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.

"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 

[Star One]

The 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.

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.

"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.