Racescort666 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 38 minutes ago, Frybert said: Well, if my guess of lining up with the barge was incorrect, my second guess would be the oxidizer loading. Not sure when they started but I don't recall the short windows prior to the FT'S, and I do recall a delay (involving a boat) after loading started to have caused an issue just after ignition. If it's not either of those reasons, then I'll have to say I have no idea. The oxidizer loading could be part of the reason to shorten the launch window but not necessarily require an instantaneous launch window. This article talks a lot about launch windows with some commentary from ULA but is mostly concerned with rendezvousing with ISS: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/18/atlas-5-flights-to-station-enjoy-longer-launch-windows/ I would assume that the F9 has enough margin to have a variable launch window like many other launch vehicles. It could also be that the orbit that they were delivering the Iridium satellites to already had other spacecraft in the same orbit and they were trying to avoid the other satellites. (Speculation warning): I thought the Iridium satellites were replacing some older satellites so it's very likely that the original satellites are in the same orbit and won't be decommissioned until after the new ones are in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineas Freak Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) The launch windows are instantaneous because that's how they were computed in the first place: the launch profile (pitch/yaw table) for a specific orbital target and payload mass generally remains the same but the actual launch times (azimuth) are computed for specific time intervals and then uploaded to the flight computer(s). This also happens for missions that have large launch windows. They always target the opening of the window. If a delay occurs then they will use the next pre-computed sub-window (and so on), till the closure of the main launch window. Performance for most launch vehicles is there but the compute capability of most flight computers is not, and that's what it is limiting real-time astrodynamic calculations. For example, Delta IV cannot do yaw steering because both the CPU power and the program memory are limited. Soyuz was until recently required to be physically rotated to the correct launch azimuth before launch due to the analog nature of it's astrionics. Edit: the pre-flight computed trajectories may theoretically be infinite but only a single one is actually verified and uploaded. Any dispersions are corrected based on the performance of the launch vehicle and the target orbital insertion point. Edited January 20, 2017 by Phineas Freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) (scratch that, interesting they've done that since first launch.) Edited January 20, 2017 by YNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Bleh, next launch pushed back till the 30th, D2 demo till November. https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Bleh, next launch pushed back till the 30th, D2 demo till November. https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ If it launches on the 30th, it'll be 9 days before they launch again for CRS-10. Isn't that a record for SpaceX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said: If it launches on the 30th, it'll be 9 days before they launch again for CRS-10. Isn't that a record for SpaceX? More likely, it means that CRS-10 will be delayed in turn. Especially with a brand new pad to inspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: More likely, it means that CRS-10 will be delayed in turn. Especially with a brand new pad to inspect. Yeah, I thought so. Would be cool if they could pull off a 9-day turnaround, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 7 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said: Yeah, I thought so. Would be cool if they could pull off a 9-day turnaround, though. Honestly, I'd rather they push it back a few days and make sure the launchpad is ok than risk any serious issues. If they can pull it off that quickly then that's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exploro Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) It will be nice to see a launch from LC-39 again after eight years of being idle. Edited January 21, 2017 by Exploro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 3 hours ago, cubinator said: Honestly, I'd rather they push it back a few days and make sure the launchpad is ok than risk any serious issues. If they can pull it off that quickly then that's great. This. I'd rather them play it very cautious and maybe ramp up to that. I wanna see that Falcon Heavy fly this summer! Boca Raton is still years from being ready and I've yet to hear even a guess at getting their old KSC pad functional again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliverm001x Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Echostar 23, delayed until the 30th, will most presumably result in chain reaction in delays... More info to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Calling it now, Dragon 2 will end up pushed back till 2018... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 10 hours ago, Exploro said: It will be nice to see a launch from LC-39 again after eight years of being idle. I was at KSC this winter, as I understand LC-39B is modified for SLS, LC-29A for Falcon heavy, no launch tower up yet, Falcon 9 uses LC-40 to the south. Falcon heavy will not use the crawler so the LC-39 looks a bit pointless, however they might need an larger pad to support the heavy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 23 minutes ago, magnemoe said: I was at KSC this winter, as I understand LC-39B is modified for SLS, LC-29A for Falcon heavy, no launch tower up yet, Falcon 9 uses LC-40 to the south. Falcon heavy will not use the crawler so the LC-39 looks a bit pointless, however they might need an larger pad to support the heavy? LC-39A is being modified by SpaceX, not LC-29A. At least that is what NASA site says https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/launch-pad-39a-modifications-for-spacex-launches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, Cuky said: LC-39A is being modified by SpaceX, not LC-29A. At least that is what NASA site says https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/launch-pad-39a-modifications-for-spacex-launches Typo from my side its LC-39A not 29A, read that the LC-40 pad will also support Falcon heavy, however assume this will require an rebuild so they use 40 for falcon 9, then 39A is done they can think about rebuilding 40 if they want two pads for heavy as an Falcon 9 can launch from an heavy pad. Trip also showed me how the crawler works, you have an base you assemble the rocket on, crawler pick up the base and move it to pad, put it down and redraw before launch. makes so much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 LC-40 won't support FH, the flame trench isn't oriented the right way relative to the hangar. When they were planning to fly FH from there, they'd have had to build a new hangar and approachway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Kryten said: LC-40 won't support FH, the flame trench isn't oriented the right way relative to the hangar. When they were planning to fly FH from there, they'd have had to build a new hangar and approachway. Stupid of them not to think of that, it was listed as an falcon heavy launch site on one wikipedia I saw, might simply be that spacex added heavy to the list of rocket they wanted to launch from it. Think about it manned launches would require an new launch tower too, will this be from LC-39A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 6 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said: Calling it now, Dragon 2 will end up pushed back till 2018... My bet '19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, magnemoe said: Stupid of them not to think of that, it was listed as an falcon heavy launch site on one wikipedia I saw, might simply be that spacex added heavy to the list of rocket they wanted to launch from it. It's not their fault, that's how the approachway was already set up. Part of the vagaries of converting a launch site from vertical to horizontal assembly LV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 35 minutes ago, Kryten said: It's not their fault, that's how the approachway was already set up. Part of the vagaries of converting a launch site from vertical to horizontal assembly LV. Makes sense, with an crawler you would want the boosters to align in the direction of travel for stability, with an horizontal mover and ejector you need them on the side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said: Calling it now, Dragon 2 will end up pushed back till 2018... 7 hours ago, Frybert said: My bet '19. The new administration may very well increase funds for Commercial Crew, which could result in it flying sooner. The manned flight was already pushed back to 2018. Dragon 2 WILL fly at least once by the end of 2018 as Red Dragon, but yeah, at the current rate the manned flight could be in 2019. Edited January 22, 2017 by _Augustus_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 2 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: The new administration may very well increase funds for Commercial Crew, which could result in it flying sooner. The Dragon 2's schedule problems aren't due to lack of funding. They're typical SpaceX overpromising and (way, way, way) later delivering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stef Morojna Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 5 hours ago, _Augustus_ said: The new administration may very well increase funds for Commercial Crew, which could result in it flying sooner. The manned flight was already pushed back to 2018. Dragon 2 WILL fly at least once by the end of 2018 as Red Dragon, but yeah, at the current rate the manned flight could be in 2019. There is still the F heavy, and the first flight of a reused 1st stage, also from what I read they have like 15 launches planed for 2017 ( prob some will get delayed but still) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Funny, space exploration related news doesn't usually get many clickbaity titles. Guess what I saw earlier today? Quote SpaceX puts its third booster in a barn—and the result is dazzling On a more related note, it may have already been mentioned, but EchoStar 23 is flying expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts