Quote from: Jakusb on 05/22/2017 09:29 pmAnybody care to speculate what to make of this response to my question? QuoteJacob Willig @jacobw35 3h@INTELSAT Will Intelsat 35e fly on flight proven Facon 9?QuoteReplying to @jacobw35Yes! We are not flying on a reusable rockethttps://twitter.com/INTELSAT/status/866755826475839492Quick google search says launch mass will be over 6 tons. It actually says 6.6 tons !I'm assuming this will be an expendable launch on a new booster.This suggests a full Block IV stack, another burn to depletion launch, but with sub sync insertion.Ignoring the pity of throwing another booster away. This launch will be exciting !Holy moly ! If this baby can be delivered to GTO-1800 m/s a lot of jaws will drop !But the answer from @INTELSAT was the least useful information to produce my speculation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_35e
Anybody care to speculate what to make of this response to my question? QuoteJacob Willig @jacobw35 3h@INTELSAT Will Intelsat 35e fly on flight proven Facon 9?QuoteReplying to @jacobw35Yes! We are not flying on a reusable rockethttps://twitter.com/INTELSAT/status/866755826475839492
Jacob Willig @jacobw35 3h@INTELSAT Will Intelsat 35e fly on flight proven Facon 9?
Replying to @jacobw35Yes! We are not flying on a reusable rocket
The current F9 specs on the SpaceX page show 8300kg to GTO. I see no issue with the current F9 delivering 6600kg to GTO-1800 in expendable mode.
Quote from: macpacheco on 05/22/2017 09:42 pmQuote from: Jakusb on 05/22/2017 09:29 pmAnybody care to speculate what to make of this response to my question? QuoteJacob Willig @jacobw35 3h@INTELSAT Will Intelsat 35e fly on flight proven Facon 9?QuoteReplying to @jacobw35Yes! We are not flying on a reusable rockethttps://twitter.com/INTELSAT/status/866755826475839492Quick google search says launch mass will be over 6 tons. It actually says 6.6 tons !I'm assuming this will be an expendable launch on a new booster.This suggests a full Block IV stack, another burn to depletion launch, but with sub sync insertion.Ignoring the pity of throwing another booster away. This launch will be exciting !Holy moly ! If this baby can be delivered to GTO-1800 m/s a lot of jaws will drop !But the answer from @INTELSAT was the least useful information to produce my speculation Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_35eThe current F9 specs on the SpaceX page show 8300kg to GTO. I see no issue with the current F9 delivering 6600kg to GTO-1800 in expendable mode.
Quote from: Brovane on 05/23/2017 06:36 pmThe current F9 specs on the SpaceX page show 8300kg to GTO. I see no issue with the current F9 delivering 6600kg to GTO-1800 in expendable mode. The current F9 specs on the SpaceX website are for a launch in 2019 on block V.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 05/23/2017 06:46 pmQuote from: Brovane on 05/23/2017 06:36 pmThe current F9 specs on the SpaceX page show 8300kg to GTO. I see no issue with the current F9 delivering 6600kg to GTO-1800 in expendable mode. The current F9 specs on the SpaceX website are for a launch in 2019 on block V.Where on the website does it list that the 8,300 kg payload to GTO is for the block V?
Quick google search says launch mass will be over 6 tons. It actually says 6.6 tons !Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_35e
Quote from: Brovane on 05/23/2017 07:40 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 05/23/2017 06:46 pmQuote from: Brovane on 05/23/2017 06:36 pmThe current F9 specs on the SpaceX page show 8300kg to GTO. I see no issue with the current F9 delivering 6600kg to GTO-1800 in expendable mode. The current F9 specs on the SpaceX website are for a launch in 2019 on block V.Where on the website does it list that the 8,300 kg payload to GTO is for the block V? It doesn't. Realize that information isn't for nit pickers on discussion lists. Its for CUSTOMERS. It brings in commercial leads to the sales pipeline. Most customers placing orders after those numbers were posted where already for Block V launches which have that capability.If a customer contacts SpaceX asking for a 8.3 ton launch to GTO-1800m/s. It will likely be offered a Falcon Heavy launch instead for F9.The 8300kg to GTO is much like FH 50+ ton capability to LEO. Its a notional number. Except in the case of FH the payload adapter doesn't have the structural margins, and in the F9 case, SpaceX doesn't want to sell new expendable contracts except for a sizeable $$$ premium.Its sad to have to explain this again and again. Elon Musk often talks to us rocket geeks. The site doesn't quite have that same goal.
The 'identical' Intelsat 33e (EpicNG, BSS 720MP bus, launched last year) had a launch mass of 6.6t. This seems to be where 6.6 tons is coming from. Would be good reasoning to assume 35e is the same.
It says 6 metric tons, the 6.6 is a conversion to the 2000lb tons (whatever the technical name for those is).
Quote from: Flying Beaver on 05/22/2017 10:36 pmThe 'identical' Intelsat 33e (EpicNG, BSS 720MP bus, launched last year) had a launch mass of 6.6t. This seems to be where 6.6 tons is coming from. Would be good reasoning to assume 35e is the same.I saw a post somewhere that said it massed 6.6 US tons, or 6 metric tons.
Quote from: Mongo62 on 05/23/2017 09:37 pmQuote from: Flying Beaver on 05/22/2017 10:36 pmThe 'identical' Intelsat 33e (EpicNG, BSS 720MP bus, launched last year) had a launch mass of 6.6t. This seems to be where 6.6 tons is coming from. Would be good reasoning to assume 35e is the same.I saw a post somewhere that said it massed 6.6 US tons, or 6 metric tons.33e is listed as 6.6 metric tons everywhere I've looked, including the Arianespace press kit and post launch articles here and at Spaceflight Now. (The Arianespace press kit also gives a total payload mass for the mission that includes the dual launch adapter and the two payload adapters.)
And just because 33e is 6600kg.. so what? I haven't read anything showing that 35e has same type/number of transponders(mass), and already proven below that it is using different Propulsion.. Why does this argument continue?
... Realize that information isn't for nit pickers on discussion lists. Its for CUSTOMERS ...
Quote from: macpacheco on 05/23/2017 07:50 pm ... Realize that information isn't for nit pickers on discussion lists. Its for CUSTOMERS ...I would imagine the website is more for the general public than for real customers. I suspect someone about to spend a few million on a satellite launch is going to contact the very short list of providers and request a quote.
Quote from: mn on 05/24/2017 03:27 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 05/23/2017 07:50 pm ... Realize that information isn't for nit pickers on discussion lists. Its for CUSTOMERS ...I would imagine the website is more for the general public than for real customers. I suspect someone about to spend a few million on a satellite launch is going to contact the very short list of providers and request a quote.At the same time, before people e-mail a potential supplier they like to browse their site to get a notion of what they have to offer.Creating a first impression.What I mean is notional rocket performance is nothing new. The Saturn V payload to LEO was never used, did the Saturn V even had the structure to actually launch a 100 ton payload to LEO ?But here that's always a point of contention, people hate that LV suppliers have this notional numbers that describe a rocket theoretical performance, but there's always a catch that prevents that performance from being reached.Real customers however understand that in normal conditions you want extra performance reserves that can be converted to a better orbit using burn to depletion if that works for them.The notional number often is zero reserve theoretical capability.
SpaceX manifest news today: Iridium launch from Vandenberg jumps from June 29 to June 25, IS-35e from Cape NET July 1, then SES-11 late July
The BulgariaSat slip makes this date a bit uncertain. We'll create the Updates thread for this launch next week after we hear more about the timing.