|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Unplanned engine-out resiliance test for CRS-1 Falcon 9?
It would seem that the most recent Falcon 9 launch included an
unplanned test of its engine-out capability: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10...alco_flameout/ rick jones -- the road to hell is paved with business decisions... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Unplanned engine-out resiliance test for CRS-1 Falcon 9?
Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that the most recent Falcon 9 launch included an unplanned test of its engine-out capability: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10...alco_flameout/ And it would seem that a secondary payload isn't quite where it was meant to be: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...goes-awry?lite rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Unplanned engine-out resiliance test for CRS-1 Falcon 9?
In article ,
says... Rick Jones wrote: It would seem that the most recent Falcon 9 launch included an unplanned test of its engine-out capability: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10...alco_flameout/ And it would seem that a secondary payload isn't quite where it was meant to be: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...goes-awry?lite From what I read today, this is looking more and more like a complete failure for the secondary payload. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...review-falcon- 9-ascent-issues/ From above, it looks like the plan was to have the second stage do a burn after Dragon separation. However, the second stage didn't pass a propellant mass check required by NASA to insure that the satellite would be inserted into an orbit that would guarantee no risk of collision with ISS. The backup plan to release the satellite in the second stage's parking orbit was executed. Because of this, none of the remaining second stage propellant could be used to help move the satellite into a more favorable orbit. I wonder what the final orbit for the secondary payload would have been if Falcon 9's second stage would have been allowed to perform a final burn to fuel/oxidizer depletion. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Unplanned engine-out resiliance test for CRS-1 Falcon 9?
Jeff Findley wrote:
From what I read today, this is looking more and more like a complete failure for the secondary payload. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...review-falcon- 9-ascent-issues/ From above, it looks like the plan was to have the second stage do a burn after Dragon separation. However, the second stage didn't pass a propellant mass check required by NASA to insure that the satellite would be inserted into an orbit that would guarantee no risk of collision with ISS. The backup plan to release the satellite in the second stage's parking orbit was executed. Because of this, none of the remaining second stage propellant could be used to help move the satellite into a more favorable orbit. I wonder what the final orbit for the secondary payload would have been if Falcon 9's second stage would have been allowed to perform a final burn to fuel/oxidizer depletion. How long can the second stage "wait" before performing a second (and I presume final?) burn? Also, I'm still trying to come to grips with what apart from an "according to common usage among the peanut gallery" "explosion" would have caused those pressure relieving panels to blow. "Engine pressure release" sounds a bit like describing a fire as an "exothermal event with external charring." I think it was a great demonstration of the Falcon9's resiliance but euphamisms (assuming they are indeed getting used here) don't speak well towards organizational resiliance. Or perhaps it is just my peanut-gallery understanding of terminology. rick jones -- Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought. these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Unplanned engine-out resiliance test for CRS-1 Falcon 9?
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... How long can the second stage "wait" before performing a second (and I presume final?) burn? Speculation on ARocket is that the burn was canceled more because of the NASA imposed rules to prevent anything from hitting ISS. Supposedly this off-nominal situation was so far off nominal that it wasn't covered by the analyses done for this reason. Because of this, they had to go to the backup plan. So the second stage of the rocket system that has a first stage which can supposedly "complete the mission" if it loses two engines, ended-up without enough propellant to complete the mission? Or is the second stage's lack of sufficent fuel/oxidizer for the burn not a result of the first stage's loss of an engine? rick jones -- No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause. There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Unplanned engine-out resiliance test for CRS-1 Falcon 9?
On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:11:08 PM UTC-4, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that the most recent Falcon 9 launch included an unplanned test of its engine-out capability: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10...alco_flameout/ rick jones -- the road to hell is paved with business decisions... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... That's a nice explanation. Now as far as that secondary payload? Is it totally useless? If so, would there be any insurance coverage? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Unplanned engine-out resiliance test for CRS-1 Falcon 9?
On Oct 10, 7:28*am, Dean wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:11:08 PM UTC-4, Rick Jones wrote: It would seem that the most recent Falcon 9 launch included an unplanned test of its engine-out capability: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10...alco_flameout/ rick jones -- the road to hell is paved with business decisions... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com *but NOT BOTH... That's a nice explanation. *Now as far as that secondary payload? *Is it totally useless? *If so, would there be any insurance coverage? For a hefty fee and/or substantial deductible, anything can be insured or bet upon. Possibly they bought a 50% coverage policy for a million bucks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Falcon..so how do you crack an engine nozzle? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 3 | December 8th 10 03:04 PM |
Falcon 1 Staging Recontact - Engine Burp | kT | Space Shuttle | 41 | August 10th 08 04:54 PM |
Falcon 1 Staging Recontact - Engine Burp | kT | Policy | 41 | August 10th 08 04:54 PM |
Falcon 1 Staging Recontact - Engine Burp | kT | History | 49 | August 10th 08 04:54 PM |
Nexus Rocket Engine Test Successful; 10 Times More Thrust Than Deep Space 1 Engine and Lasts 3 Times Longer (10 years) | [email protected] | Technology | 5 | December 30th 03 07:44 PM |