Updates SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 with Cassiope, POPACS (x6), CUSat 1&2, September 29, 2013

[Kyle]

Looks like a good launch here! Congratulations to SpaceX

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Awaiting word on S/C sep and 1st stage relight success.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

SUCCESSFUL S/C SEP!

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Launch video, expect a higher quality one from SpaceX soon, hopefully without the dropouts.

I'll admit I'm glad to have this one off the ground, maiden flights of new vehicles always get my heart pumping. Next Falcon 9 v1.1 launch tentatively scheduled for October 23rd out of SLC-40, and I'll be setting up an update thread for that once I hear that everything worked as expected on today's launch.

SpaceX

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Very curious to see what the first stage will look like after the landing... if they can find it, that is. :shifty:

 

[Kyle]

Photos from SFN:

---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

Tidbits from the press conference:

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust 44s

Musk: attempted relight of upper stage, encountered anomaly. Understand what it is and will fix before next flight. #falcon9

Musk: Lower stage 3-engine relight went well, reentered. Single-engine relight went well, but exceeded roll control of ACS. #falcon9

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Why did they want to relight the upper stage? Just to prove that it can be done?

First stage: awww... Beef up the roll thrusters and we're good to go!

 

[Kyle]

Several reasons, relight is a must for the next flight. The problem doesn't appear to be a no-show for the next flight as SpaceX already understands the issue. They're good like that.

Musk: rolling "centrifuged" propellant, shut down engine early. Did recover "portions" of 1st stage after splashdown. #falcon9

Musk: despite that, we have all the pieces in place to accomplish recovery of stages in the future, "full and rapid reusability" of stage.

Musk: all 1st and 2nd stage engines performed "slightly better than expected". #falcon9

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

Musk: all 1st and 2nd stage engines performed "slightly better than expected". #falcon9

Musk: will next attempt recovery on 4th F9 v1.1 launch, of CRS-3. That vehicle may also have landing legs. #falcon9

Musk: won't hold up CRS-3 launch to install legs on F9. Schedule driven by upgrades to Dragon. Probably Feb '14 launch. #falcon9

Musk: working with Air Force and FAA on identifying landing sites for F9 1st stage, looking at eastern tip of Cape Canaveral. #falcon9

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

Musk: did recover video of the first stage reentry, hope to post it online later this week. #falcon9

Musk: still working on 3rd launch site, "quite likely" to be Texas but not resolved yet. #falcon9

Musk: Also pursuing LC-39A at KSC for NASA (cargo and crew). Current Cape launch site would be used for other customers. #falcon9 (good to hear it from Musk that that's being actively pursued with serious intent)

Musk: hoping to do a test firing of Falcon Heavy at Texas test site by 2nd quarter of 2014.

Musk: if things go "super well", could refly a Falcon 9 1st stage by the end of next year.

Lots of golden stuff in this press conference!

 

[N_Molson]

First stage: awww... Beef up the roll thrusters and we're good to go!

Y'know it's a bit more complex than that... Rockets first stages generally don't control their roll with thrusters, but using thrust vectoring or additionnal Vernier engines. You would need big thrusters to have the desired effect, especially during the atmospheric phase of the flight, when air friction and aerodynamic parts like fins tend to stop roll, which is actually good for stability and control. One of the exceptions was the N-1. Ahem. Ariane 5, which has only one engines once boosters are jettisoned, has a roll control system located on the 1-2 interstage, though. But when the boosters are away, the stage is well above dense atmosphere, so there is no friction effect and the near-vacuum is ideal to use hydrazine thrusters. The R-7 has fixed main engines but has 4 additionnal Verniers by booster & core.

Why did they want to relight the upper stage? Just to prove that it can be done?

Because it is a very important feature for any modern launcher, especially if you want to send payloads to GSO. Restart ability allow much more flexibility, like changing inclination, or making the GSO apoapsis burn for the satellite. So it's pretty normal they take any opportunity to test it. Again, don't be naïve, it is one of the most complex aspects of rocket engineering. Russians know something about it, they had their share of troubles on that with the Breeze-M upper stage (which is flying in the next minutes). If you are providing satellite service and think to work with a launcher, you want to have proofs it works. Hence the demonstration flights ; as a launcher service provider you don't attract customers without successful attemps. And it seems that SpaceX has still R&D work to do on that important feature.

Lots of golden stuff in this press conference!

Lots of words from always the same man. Engineering teams decide what is doable or not, provided they have enough budget.

 

[Kyle]

Musk wouldn't say it if his engineer's didn't back him up beforehand about these deadlines and goals before and after the launch. Everything he's said is a perfectly reasonable goal to achieve given the latest Grasshopper flights and the latest success of the Falcon 9.

 

[RGClark]

Congrats to SpaceX on the successful launch.

Bob Clark

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

A slightly little less laggy version of the webcast officially from SpaceX:

Good job on the first stage re-light - it looks like recovery of first stages may be closer than I thought! And of course good to see the satellites deployed nominally.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Because it is a very important feature for any modern launcher, especially if you want to send payloads to GSO. Restart ability allow much more flexibility, like changing inclination, or making the GSO apoapsis burn for the satellite. So it's pretty normal they take any opportunity to test it. Again, don't be naïve, it is one of the most complex aspects of rocket engineering. Russians know something about it, they had their share of troubles on that with the Breeze-M upper stage (which is flying in the next minutes). If you are providing satellite service and think to work with a launcher, you want to have proofs it works. Hence the demonstration flights ; as a launcher service provider you don't attract customers without successful attemps. And it seems that SpaceX has still R&D work to do on that important feature.

I know why you need an upper stage to relight. I was just curious why they did it on this flight, where it wasn't needed.

 

[MattBaker]

I was just curious why they did it on this flight, where it wasn't needed.

They also did it on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_COTS_Demo_Flight_1"]COTS Demo Flight 1[/ame], although they trimmed the nozzle before the launch. And it was the old engine, so it would have been interesting how the new Merlin 1 performed compared to the lower thrust precursor.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

This video taken from the ground shows the first stage firing shortly after stage separation to decelerate it towards the ocean! (from 4:00 onwards)

 

[gwiz]

I know why you need an upper stage to relight. I was just curious why they did it on this flight, where it wasn't needed.

It was a test to make sure they could do it, and just as well since they found a problem which would have scuppered a mission where relight was needed.

 

[N_Molson]

It was a test to make sure they could do it, and just as well since they found a problem which would have scuppered a mission where relight was needed.

Exactly. Race Into Space players know how it works : you have to spend time and money on research in laboratories to reach a certain % of reliability, but once you're there, the only way to improve the reliability further are test flights, that allow to collect data in real flight conditions. A simplified but realistic way to depict the developpement process of any space hardware program.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Anybody seeing anything regarding the 1st stage performance after staging? Apparently it didn't completely decelerate due to a fuel shortage / ullage issue, but I'm curious to know about how well or poorly it re-oriented and fired. I'm itching to know how close or far it came to achieving a soft touchdown.

 

[RGClark]

Just saw this:

No Upper-stage Explosion after Falcon 9 v1.1 Launch, SpaceX Says
By Dan Leone | Oct. 1, 2013

SpaceX attempted to reignite the upper stage after payload separation in a demonstration of a capability it will need to place satellites into the proper geostationary transfer orbit. However, the reignition sequence was aborted after a problem was detected, SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk told reporters in a postlaunch teleconference.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/la...plosion-after-falcon-9-v11-launch-spacex-says

Surprised they weren't able to get the firing sequence working for the upper stage to make GTO. That's the most lucrative satellite orbit. I think this is the second time that failed.

Bob Clark

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Anybody seeing anything regarding the 1st stage performance after staging? Apparently it didn't completely decelerate due to a fuel shortage / ullage issue, but I'm curious to know about how well or poorly it re-oriented and fired. I'm itching to know how close or far it came to achieving a soft touchdown.

From what we've heard, it made the first deceleration burn with three engines just fine, but encountered excessive roll during the final descent on one engine, causing the fuel to "centrifuge" to the tank walls, away from the fuel lines. Thus starved of fuel, the engine died.

 

[N_Molson]

Surprised they weren't able to get the firing sequence working for the upper stage to make GTO.

Again this is a very difficult aspect of spacecraft engineering. The Centaur technology, that is today reliable, has been developped since the 60's. The Russian tugs have a long history of mishaps, too. Re-igniting an engine is each time a true challenge, even when it seems "easy". Don't wonder why they choosed hypergolic propellants for Apollo, Soyuz and even the Shuttle : it already solves the problem of the igniter (though they are many other difficulties like achieving a stable combustion, having the propellant mixing in the exact proportions so etc)...

 

[MattBaker]

I think this is the second time that failed.

The other time you're remembering it didn't really "fail". What you mean was CRS-1 during which's first stage flight an engine failed. One condition for the restart to put the secondary payload into orbit was a 99% success rate that the payload would end up above the Station. But due to the earlier engine failure the probability was 'only' 95% so the stage wasn't allowed to relight but it would have most likely worked.

As pointed out earlier by me they already did the restarting of the second stage before, at the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_COTS_Demo_Flight_1"]COTS Demo Flight 1[/ame].

 

[RGClark]

The other time you're remembering it didn't really "fail". What you mean was CRS-1 during which's first stage flight an engine failed. One condition for the restart to put the secondary payload into orbit was a 99% success rate that the payload would end up above the Station. But due to the earlier engine failure the probability was 'only' 95% so the stage wasn't allowed to relight but it would have most likely worked.
As pointed out earlier by me they already did the restarting of the second stage before, at the COTS Demo Flight 1.

Actually I had forgotten about that. This is probably what I was remembering:

SpaceX Tweaking Falcon 9 Software for Upcoming Launch.
By Amy Klamper | Sep. 3, 2010

...In addition, the company has been investigating the cause of a failed second-stage restart attempt that occurred during the maiden flight. In June, SpaceX spokeswoman Emily Shanklin said the restart was not a primary mission objective for the debut, “but we actually did reignite briefly and we are evaluating that data.”
http://www.spacenews.com/article/spacex-tweaking-falcon-9-software-upcoming-launch

Bob Clark