Things are looking good at the Cape a couple minutes before launch of the Falcon 9.
[Update a couple minutes later]
A couple minutes into the flight, and everything is looking nominal, about to MECO.
OK, stage sep, ignition confirmed for second stage. Another six minutes to orbit.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Second-stage engine cutoff in a couple minutes, still nominal trajectory.
[Update a couple minutes later]
OK, engine shutdown and Dragon separation. It’s in orbit with a low perigee. I assume they’ll do a circularization burn at apogee. About to deploy solar panels.
[Update a while later]
I think that it’s safe to say that Dragon flights have become routine now. But the next one will have some pucker factor, because it will be a new version of the vehicle, stretched, with the Merlin D engines.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oops, may have spoken too soon. Did they have a fairing problem?
If they can’t deploy the panels, I think that Gwynne said yesterday that they can attempt one berthing pass on batteries.
I assume that if there were a crew, they’d probably abort back to earth at this point, while they have batteries (assuming whatever went wrong didn’t interfere with the heat shield). And if they had a small crew, with suits for everyone, they could blow down the cabin and attempt an EVA repair, a la Skylab.
[Update a while later]
There’s going to be a press conference in a few minutes, so I guess we’ll find out more.
I personally blame the sequester.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder if they can blow down the cabin? I would have cold plated the electronics, but if they didn’t, it might need air pressure to keep things cool. Surely they designed for that?
[Update a couple minutes later]
For those unfamiliar, I describe the Skylab repair in the book:
before the program ended completely and after the last lunar landing, NASA did undertake one more hazardous series of missions with Apollo hardware, though not to the moon. In 1973, America’s first space station, Skylab, suffered a failure on its launch, when the meteoroid shield was torn off from the aerodynamic forces, taking with it one of the two main solar panels while partially deploying the other prematurely. NASA had to nurse the crippled facility in a “hold” position that resulted in an increase of heat within due to the loss of the shield. The temperature reached 125° F, and it was unknown whether or not the cabin atmosphere was breathable, due to potential toxins from outgassing of overheated materials. But the agency hastily planned a risky repair mission to be performed by the station’s first crew – Pete Conrad, Paul Weitz and Joe Kerwin.
After rendezvousing with the station, the repair started with an open-hatch spacewalk from the Apollo capsule, with Weitz leaning out with a pole, his legs held by Kerwin. However, his attempt to release the stuck solar panel was unsuccessful. The crew then docked to the facility after several failed attempts, and entered after verifying that the air was breathable, albeit hot. From inside the airlock, they deployed a parasol that shielded the structure from the sun, and the temperature finally started to come down, though the power remained low due to the missing and stuck solar arrays. A couple of weeks into the one-month mission, Conrad and Kerwin once again put on suits and went out the airlock to attempt to free up the array. This time they succeeded, but it was almost a disaster, as Conrad was flung by the sudden release of the system after he removed debris from the hinge that was holding it in place. Had he not been tethered, he would have died as the life-support systems of his space suit were depleted, with him unable to get back to the spacecraft. But he was, and the two made it back in. The station was now almost fully functional, and would go on to host two more crews, giving the U.S. valuable long-duration space experience unmatched until the ISS was permanently crewed almost thirty years later. But with the end of Skylab in 1974, and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program in 1975, the Apollo program was finally over.
I wonder if we may see a repeat, if they can manage to berth it?
[Update a couple minutes later]
OK, apparently the panels aren’t the problem. They’ve got thruster issues, which are causing them to delay the panel deployment until they’re resolved. If they can’t fix that problem, they’re probably not even going to be able to abort and enter properly.
[Update a while later]
No press conference yet, but here’s the official statement from SpaceX: “After Dragon achieved orbit, the spacecraft experienced an issue with its thrusters. One thruster pod is running and two are preferred to take the next step which is to deploy the solar arrays. We are working to bring up the other two in order to plan the next series of burns to get to station.”
[Update a couple minutes later]
This sounds like good news: “thruster pod 3 tank pressure trending positive. Preparing to deploy solar arrays.”
[Update just before noon EDT]
“Solar array deployment successful”
Here’s the latest from SpaceX: “Falcon 9 lifted off as planned and experienced a nominal flight. After Dragon achieved orbit, the spacecraft experienced an issue with a propellant valve. One thruster pod is running. We are trying to bring up the remaining three. We did go ahead and get the solar arrays deployed. Once we get at least 2 pods running, we will begin a series of burns to get to station.”
Looked good in early stages, but after stage sep and stage two ignition the announcer said “standing by for nosecone separation”… and nothinghappened. Then came Dragon sep and it looked to me as if the fairings on the side of the solar panels were still in place… the announcer said “10 seconds to solar panel deploy…” and then picture cut away and no further announcements. Any word on what’s going on?
Solar panels failed to deploy, per Spaceflightnow
They mentioned earlier that if the solar arrays failed to deploy they would have one attempt to berth on batteries. Did they jinx the flight, or were they counting with problems?
If they berth at ISS with sails undeployed I wonder if there is anything that could be done at ISS to then assist in deploying them?
There’s a good chance. They could do an EVA. In fact, they could even potentially use the Dragon as an airlock, once attached, to save themselves a longer trip.
SFN suggests they have deliberately delayed the solar array deployment until they regain attitude control. If the inhibit is justified and they can’t just override it, then they’re even more screwed than with stuck panels, but if they can, they should be OK.
“It appears that although it achieved Earth orbit, Dragon is experiencing some kind problem right now,” said John Insprucker, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 product manager. We’lll have to learn about the nature of what happened. According to procedure, we expect a press conference to be held a few hours from now. At that time, further info may be available.”
It did lack some of the drama of the earlier launches but not much. Hope the solar panel issue isn’t serious.
Musk tweets:
Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override.
If the panels can’t deploy, do they fire the retro rockets and de-orbit now? Any contingency for a recovery of Dragon and it’s payload?
Thruster issue is bad… if they can’t gain thruster control mission is a dead loss.
Surely they designed for that?
A couple of months ago Jim over at nasaspaceflight said that the electronics need atmospheric cooling, so they couldn’t vent the cabin.
Well, that reduces the flexibility of the system. If I were purchasing one, I’d modify it to allow it to be blown down in an emergency.
Musk: Thruster pod 3 tank pressure trending positive. Preparing to deploy solar arrays.
Yes, I just got an email with those words from Emily Shanklin. She must have pulled it off his feed.
Even if they get a second pod running, I wonder what NASA will have to say about making an ISS close approach with less than optimal thruster control…
Musk: Solar array deployment successful.
So was it software, hardware, or a combination of both?
I am no Muskophobe (I am really pulling for him and SpaceX to save human spaceflight), but this does preserve SpaceX’s dubious record of one potentially serious anomaly per Falcon 9 / Dragon flight…
No more so that the early NASA missions. SpaceX is just having to work its way up the learning curve like everyone else did.
If fact problems like this are probably good for the firm as it keeps them on their toes. Recall that over confidence was a factor in both Shuttle accidents..
Difficulties on new spacecraft is normal. The record of overcoming the difficulties and salvaging the mission is noteworthy.
Hi Guys, I like space. Do you like space?
Sounds as if they haven’t fixed the problem yet, and have decided to risk deploying the arrays even with a single thruster pod.
Spaceflight Now: “A NASA official says three Dragon thruster pods are required to approach the International Space Station.”
Pods 1 and 4 now operational. Active control engaged.
So Scotty managed to re-route emergency power. 🙂
But if he gives it any more, the whole thing will blow!
He just had to reverse the polarity as usual.
Expendable rocket and capsule: “We have a thruster problem and can’t dock with the space station. Looks like we’ll lose the vehicle, the payload, and $100 million customer payment.”
Reusable spacecraft: “We have a thruster problem and can’t dock with the space station. Looks like we’ll have to return to base, call in the mechanics, and refly the mission tomorrow.”
I’m just saying.
If the reusable spacecraft has landing area limitations the scenarios might be (1) maintain orbit until a suitable landing site is within range or (2) ditch, losing craft and cargo. (1) may not be possible–the craft may run out of power or overheat before a suitable landing area comes into range if it can’t deploy whatever needs to be deployed. Some of the landing areas suitable for (1) may be for landing only–it might not be possible to recover the reusable from them.
If the reusable lost RCS then it would likely tumble on reentry, leading to loss of craft and cargo.
Reusables have been proposed with heavier take-off capacities than landing capacities. If this were one of those missions, the craft and the cargo would both be lost.
Good point, Daver- this is why we plan to routinely test all the RCS thrusters on Lynx *before* we tow it out on the runway, and maybe a couple bumps during the climb if we’re feeling particularly paranoid that day. Nontoxic propellants make this easier to do.
I like to follow the first law of wingwalking- “Don’t leave hold of what you have until you get hold of the next thing.” Committing yourself to flight out the atmosphere before you’re sure you can maintain control can lead to some excitement…
In SpaceX’s favor, though, the Dragon is just a payload until Falcon delivers it to orbit, and they obviously had time to work the problem. Having low gain antennas to allow reduced-bitrate communication while attitude is not controlled is mandatory.
So far SpaceX has absolutely refused to provide us with photogenic pad pyrotechnics, more’s the pity. 😉
I’d really like to spend my 50th anniversary in an orbital Bigelow habitat, or equivalent. 28 years to go.
Might even bring the wife-unit.
Dragon delivers again!