Excellent play-by-play. I appreciate the insight on the launch roll, sounds like a non-issue. Do you have any insight on what looked like a poor release of the umbilical going to the second stage? On the launch video, you can see it spewing vapor, and as it drops into the launch fireball it ignites dramitically.
Got a question on the first stage recovery. You said “…if this problem can’t be fixed, every launch will cost more because the stages won’t be able to be reused….” But, IIRC, the current published Falcon 9 Price Point does not include recovery and reuse of the first stage.
Looking forward, they are looking to have cost savings from recovery and reuse but they don’t have any idea yet what the actual, empirical, costs would be to do that (much less, how much of the 1st stage can be reused after going through launch, flight, and splash down) so they don’t know how much they would be able to drive the Price Point down. They *want* the whole thing to be reusable but until they get a stage back to see what they are going to have to do to it they just don’t know what kind of savings they can generate.
So, for now, the only thing that would drive the F-9 Price Point would be changes in their costs to manufacture the Falcon family of Launchers and inflation. And with the budget and tax situation in Cali looking like it is…. 🙁
In the Max Q section after “air pressure against which it pushes” I would insert the word “laterally”.
Nitpick, but Max Q depends on air *density*, not pressure.
In the discussion of the post ignition abort: This was in fact one of the most impressive things about the launch, because almost any other vehicle would have had to detank after such an abort and cycle for at least 24 hours (this is the case with the space shuttle).
I think you may be giving the Space Shuttle too much credit here. You did say “at least”, but 24 hours is really low balling the estimate. It would be (has 5 times) detanked and rolled back, pushing the next attempt weeks to months later.
Of course, this isn’t even an option for Ares I. Some say that’s a feature for Ares…
About the post ignition abort, recycle, and launch (inside the remaining 1.5 hours of the launch window):
You *know* the folks at DoD who are looking at ‘Responsive Space’ all had a … to quote Jim Carrie’s ‘The Riddler’ … “*JOY-GASSUM*!!!!”
And then had to go to the inner courtyard for a smoke and to figure out how to sneak home for a change of underwear. 😉
Excellent play-by-play. I appreciate the insight on the launch roll, sounds like a non-issue. Do you have any insight on what looked like a poor release of the umbilical going to the second stage? On the launch video, you can see it spewing vapor, and as it drops into the launch fireball it ignites dramitically.
Got a question on the first stage recovery. You said “…if this problem can’t be fixed, every launch will cost more because the stages won’t be able to be reused….” But, IIRC, the current published Falcon 9 Price Point does not include recovery and reuse of the first stage.
Looking forward, they are looking to have cost savings from recovery and reuse but they don’t have any idea yet what the actual, empirical, costs would be to do that (much less, how much of the 1st stage can be reused after going through launch, flight, and splash down) so they don’t know how much they would be able to drive the Price Point down. They *want* the whole thing to be reusable but until they get a stage back to see what they are going to have to do to it they just don’t know what kind of savings they can generate.
So, for now, the only thing that would drive the F-9 Price Point would be changes in their costs to manufacture the Falcon family of Launchers and inflation. And with the budget and tax situation in Cali looking like it is…. 🙁
In the Max Q section after “air pressure against which it pushes” I would insert the word “laterally”.
Nitpick, but Max Q depends on air *density*, not pressure.
In the discussion of the post ignition abort:
This was in fact one of the most impressive things about the launch, because almost any other vehicle would have had to detank after such an abort and cycle for at least 24 hours (this is the case with the space shuttle).
I think you may be giving the Space Shuttle too much credit here. You did say “at least”, but 24 hours is really low balling the estimate. It would be (has 5 times) detanked and rolled back, pushing the next attempt weeks to months later.
Of course, this isn’t even an option for Ares I. Some say that’s a feature for Ares…
About the post ignition abort, recycle, and launch (inside the remaining 1.5 hours of the launch window):
You *know* the folks at DoD who are looking at ‘Responsive Space’ all had a … to quote Jim Carrie’s ‘The Riddler’ … “*JOY-GASSUM*!!!!”
And then had to go to the inner courtyard for a smoke and to figure out how to sneak home for a change of underwear. 😉