Leaning tower of falcon 9

In article m,
says...

On 2016-06-25 08:57, Jeff Findley wrote:

Wrong. They're buying cargo delivery service. That's kind of the whole
point of "commercial cargo".

But NASA sent a whole boat load of cash to SpaceX to build a number of
Dragons for the COTS project. And if you look at their requirement that
manned Dragons land in water, it appears to me that they are buying more
than taxi service.

NASA paid for SpaceX to meet milestones, but they do not own the
hardware. The proof is that the first flown Dragon capsules are hanging
from the ceiling at their Hawthorne California site. If NASA owned
them, they'd be property of the Smithsonian and would either be in one
of their D.C. facilities, or on loan to a NASA museum.

NASA does not launch *any* Falcons. Mission control for Falcon is is
Hawthorne California. Watch the live stream of a launch sometime!

I have watched both NASA and SpaceX streams. And NASA really puts
emphasis on its mission control crews being in control and Hawthorne
just "monitoring".

Really? I'd certainly like a cite for this one. I could see NASA might
want some control over Dragon, especially close to ISS, but Falcon?
Seems quite hard to believe.

If we hear "hold hold hold" just before launch, is that a SpaceX
employee or NASA one ? Would it be fair to state that NASA employees
are involved for weather and launch pad ? (or is that the airforce
employees ?) AKA: when SpaceX contracts to launch from Cape Canaveral,
is the contract with military or with NASA ?

Actually, range safety is done by USAF. To date, all Falcons launched
from Florida have been launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
not from NASA's Kennedy Space Center. This will change a bit when their
KSC pad starts launching Falcons, but I'm sure SpaceX is in control of
their launch vehicles. They're not at all owned by NASA.

In terms of approach to the station. after Dragon has gone into "safe"
station keeping, I take it that NASA is the one who authorizes final
approach ? Does NASA send the command to Dragon to proceed with final
approach, or does SPaceX send the command ?

I'm sure NASA has a hand in controlling Dragon as it approaches ISS.
NASA is surely the one calling *those* station keeping holds. But
Falcon is the launch vehicle, which is completely different.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
b.com...

On 2016-06-25 08:57, Jeff Findley wrote:

Wrong. They're buying cargo delivery service. That's kind of the whole
point of "commercial cargo".

But NASA sent a whole boat load of cash to SpaceX to build a number of
Dragons for the COTS project. And if you look at their requirement that
manned Dragons land in water, it appears to me that they are buying more
than taxi service.

No, they're just specifying a town car instead of a yellow cab, so SpaceX is
probably charging a bit more.



NASA does not launch *any* Falcons. Mission control for Falcon is is
Hawthorne California. Watch the live stream of a launch sometime!

I have watched both NASA and SpaceX streams. And NASA really puts
emphasis on its mission control crews being in control and Hawthorne
just "monitoring".

If we hear "hold hold hold" just before launch, is that a SpaceX
employee or NASA one ? Would it be fair to state that NASA employees
are involved for weather and launch pad ? (or is that the airforce
employees ?) AKA: when SpaceX contracts to launch from Cape Canaveral,
is the contract with military or with NASA ?

My guess is the only person outside SpaceX who has any authority at the Cape
is the Range Safety Officer, and that's AR.



In terms of approach to the station. after Dragon has gone into "safe"
station keeping, I take it that NASA is the one who authorizes final
approach ? Does NASA send the command to Dragon to proceed with final
approach, or does SPaceX send the command ?

I'm almost positive SpaceX does.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article om,
says...

On 2016-06-25 16:43, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

In terms of approach to the station. after Dragon has gone into "safe"
station keeping, I take it that NASA is the one who authorizes final
approach ? Does NASA send the command to Dragon to proceed with final
approach, or does SPaceX send the command ?

I'm almost positive SpaceX does.


Can't remember if this was for Dragon or the japanese one. But one of
the procedures was for station crews to send a command to the nearby
ship to turn on a light as confirmation they had a working data link and
could remotely control the ship if necesssary (such as call for
emergency "get away" command.).

This would imply that SpaceX has given NASA the means to access Dragon's
command and control.


So if I get this right, NASA is totally out of the loop for the launch
from Cape Canaveral and it is only the Air Force (owner of the facility
and controller of range safety) that would have a say for launch,
correct ? So if NASA-TV shows the KSC or Houston control rooms, it is
just to pretend they are involved ?

I'm sure they're involved, as in monitoring the launch and monitoring
Dragon. And most certainly they're going to put a feed of the launch on
NASA TV. But, NASA quite simply does not buy Falcons or Dragons and
take control of operating them from launch to landing.

Instead, NASA buys cargo delivery services to ISS. It's up to SpaceX
and Orbital ATK to get the cargo to the ISS. This is why it's called
"commercial cargo". And this is why it's so much cheaper than having
NASA do everything.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 2016-06-25 16:43, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

In terms of approach to the station. after Dragon has gone into "safe"
station keeping, I take it that NASA is the one who authorizes final
approach ? Does NASA send the command to Dragon to proceed with final
approach, or does SPaceX send the command ?

I'm almost positive SpaceX does.


Can't remember if this was for Dragon or the japanese one. But one of
the procedures was for station crews to send a command to the nearby
ship to turn on a light as confirmation they had a working data link and
could remotely control the ship if necesssary (such as call for
emergency "get away" command.).

This would imply that SpaceX has given NASA the means to access Dragon's
command and control.


I do seem to recall NASA having some sort of "abort" capability, but that's
about it.


So if I get this right, NASA is totally out of the loop for the launch
from Cape Canaveral and it is only the Air Force (owner of the facility
and controller of range safety) that would have a say for launch,
correct ? So if NASA-TV shows the KSC or Houston control rooms, it is
just to pretend they are involved ?


Oh, I'm sure they're involved. If there's anomalous condition, I'm sure NASA
wants a heads up as early as possible.
To make up an example (I have no clue is this is an actual case) Dragon ends
up in a lower than normal orbit and SpaceX wants to use onboard reserves to
fix the problem, NASA will want to evaluate that to know if there's enough
margin for proximity ops.

or to make up another example, if the Dragon experiences higher than normal
transient g forces (let's say a Merlin starts to pogo for some strange,
unknown reason), again NASA may want to know as soon as possible.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In sci.astro message -
september.org, Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:40:00, Jeff Findley
posted:


Instead, NASA buys cargo delivery services to ISS. It's up to SpaceX
and Orbital ATK to get the cargo to the ISS. This is why it's called
"commercial cargo". And this is why it's so much cheaper than having
NASA do everything.

Does this SpaceX commercial service actually pay for the resources it
uses at CCAFS? It should, as Orbital ATK uses Wallops which seems to
belong to Virginia and some future SpaceX flights will use SpaceX's own
probably-cheaper Brownsville resources.


--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Merlyn Web Site - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

In article id,
lid says...

In sci.astro message -
september.org, Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:40:00, Jeff Findley
posted:


Instead, NASA buys cargo delivery services to ISS. It's up to SpaceX
and Orbital ATK to get the cargo to the ISS. This is why it's called
"commercial cargo". And this is why it's so much cheaper than having
NASA do everything.

Does this SpaceX commercial service actually pay for the resources it
uses at CCAFS?

I'm pretty sure they do and I would hope that their fees are similar to
what other companies pay to launch from CCAFS (e.g. Atlas V and Delta IV
also launch from CCAFS).

It should, as Orbital ATK uses Wallops which seems to
belong to Virginia and some future SpaceX flights will use SpaceX's own
probably-cheaper Brownsville resources.

Brownsville also has the advantage that they don't have to "fight" for
slots in the USAF schedule to launch from CCAFS. The range safety
(radar tracking, aircraft, and the people to run them) have limits, so
you can't easily launch different vehicles in "rapid fire".

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip

I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.

Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.

If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
every flight, which we obviously do not do.

Nope.


Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.

Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?


Lack of response noted.

I responded but you didn't understand the response.


Lack of response noted.


I responded but you didn't understand the response.


Lack of response noted.


You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.

After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.


And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?

History, McCrap.


Wrong, Chimp****.


Correct, McCrap.


Well of course I'm correct, Chimp****.


Nope, McCrap, you are wrong.


Well make up your mind, Chimp****.


Do you think the FAA sets inspection times arbitrarily or do you think
the times are based on some historical data?


Yes. Now go look up 'fallacy of the excluded middle'.

Now one for you. Given a completely new aircraft design with new
materials, new engines, etc, do you think the FAA sets the initial
inspection times arbitrarily, do you think they're set based on
non-existent historical data, or do you think they're set based on
engineering performance data on the expected duty cycles of the parts?


And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
fielding of the product.


And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You
know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei
is arguing about.

The arguement you started was about generalities, not some specific
of SpaceX, McCrap.


Wrong, Chimp****. The fact that Mezei didn't bother to crosspost your
stupid ass into it until it was well underway is an intellectual
shortcoming on your part.


Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
and fly them to destruction.

I don't care what Mezei claims.


Then why the **** are you even in this discussion?

Why the **** do you care?


Rhetorical question. Look it up.

YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
lengthen with experience.

Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
life", not performance.


And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
Chimp****.

Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.


Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.

Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.


Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimp****. Just because you
can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same
with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category
doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole
enchilada.

Straight from the McCrap unabridged dictionary...


Straight from 33 years in engineering in the aerospace industry. And
it doesn't matter how much of his own feces the Chimp flings. You may
not understand it, but all that **** is interrelated.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-06-22 19:31, wrote:

Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
aircraft.


McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
production.


That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.


Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.

I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.


I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimp****.

Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap?


Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative,
Chimp****?


You started, again, McCrap.


No, Chimp****. You injected yourself because you're so stupid that
Mezei caught you in the crosspost.



For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
model.


I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.

Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.


How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?

Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with
production.


Irrelevant, since I never said it did.


Then why bring up hand built in the first place, McCrap, or are you going
to lie and say you didn't?


Why not, Chimp****? Why bring up limited production old wooden cars
when we're talking about a bloody rocket?

Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
what that something is, McCrap.


Where did I say it did, Chimp****?

It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap.


Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in
your head instead of what others say, Chimp****.

"I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built...".

Your words, McCrap. If hand built is of no significance, why bring it
up at all, McCrap?


Blot, Chimp****. You're going to short something out. You brought up
airplanes (which are marginally appropriate) and wooden cars (which
are totally inapt).


snip ranting bile


Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.

Nope, just no point to responding to ranting bile and name calling.


Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.

Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
launching it for you.

The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture
for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.


The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making
or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of
being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms:
manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly,
creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines"

As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there
anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are
currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimp****.

The suffix "ing" in making and manufacturing implies an on going action,
McCrap.


No, it implies a CURRENT action.


As for sale, why else would a company be manufacturing something on
an on going basis, McCrap?


Buy a ****ing dictionary and look it up, Chimp****.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

JF Mezei wrote:

rockets being hand built.

Just because there are humans in the production line doesn't mean
something is hand built.


Have any experience with building rockets? They're hand built with
****loads of what is referred to in the trade as 'touch labor'. It's
one of the reasons they cost so much.


Not sure if ...


Then you should STFU and stop arguing with people who know better than
you.

snip


Building the engines cannot be done by hand as it requires computer
precision. So a human may be pushing buttons, but a machine makes the
shapes very precisely.


Then human beings go in with jewelers files and **** during assembly.
DOH!


Not sure how ...


Then you should STFU and stop arguing with people who know better than
you.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip

I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.

Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.

If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
every flight, which we obviously do not do.

Nope.


Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.

Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?


Lack of response noted.

I responded but you didn't understand the response.


Lack of response noted.


I responded but you didn't understand the response.


Lack of response noted.

I responded but you didn't understand the response.


You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.

After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.


And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?

History, McCrap.


Wrong, Chimp****.


Correct, McCrap.


Well of course I'm correct, Chimp****.


Nope, McCrap, you are wrong.


Well make up your mind, Chimp****.

I never changed my mind, McCrap, you have been wrong from the start
and continue to be wrong.


Do you think the FAA sets inspection times arbitrarily or do you think
the times are based on some historical data?


Yes. Now go look up 'fallacy of the excluded middle'.

Now one for you. Given a completely new aircraft design with new
materials, new engines, etc, do you think the FAA sets the initial
inspection times arbitrarily, do you think they're set based on
non-existent historical data, or do you think they're set based on
engineering performance data on the expected duty cycles of the parts?

None of the above, McCrap.

Your first misconception is that the FAA has "initial inspection times"
for new designs.

Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently
for different aircraft.

And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
fielding of the product.


And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You
know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei
is arguing about.

The arguement you started was about generalities, not some specific
of SpaceX, McCrap.


Wrong, Chimp****. The fact that Mezei didn't bother to crosspost your
stupid ass into it until it was well underway is an intellectual
shortcoming on your part.

**** off and die or go argue with Mezei; I don't care which McCrap.

Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
and fly them to destruction.

I don't care what Mezei claims.


Then why the **** are you even in this discussion?

Why the **** do you care?


Rhetorical question. Look it up.

YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
lengthen with experience.

Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
life", not performance.


And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
Chimp****.

Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.


Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.

Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.


Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimp****. Just because you
can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same
with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category
doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole
enchilada.

Straight from the McCrap unabridged dictionary...


Straight from 33 years in engineering in the aerospace industry. And
it doesn't matter how much of his own feces the Chimp flings. You may
not understand it, but all that **** is interrelated.

Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace.


--
Jim Pennino