If successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdesFAA: We've OK'd SpaceX's launch-window requests for Nov. 28 & 29 after refusing requests for 26/27th because of heavy holiday air traffic.
Quote from: WHAP on 11/27/2013 10:05 pmIf successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.I believe it's the cost of the launch which is the most relevant point. That's what was said at the SES press conference, anyway.
Did anybody listen to the SpaceX/SES phone call*? What was the part about being able to increase the engines to 160,000 lbs sea level thrust? Have we ever heard that before?* http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2013/16399975QuoteUS\Canada: (855) 859-2056International: (404) 537-3406Conference ID: 16853657
US\Canada: (855) 859-2056International: (404) 537-3406Conference ID: 16853657
Quote from: johnmoe on 11/27/2013 08:48 pmDid anybody listen to the SpaceX/SES phone call*? What was the part about being able to increase the engines to 160,000 lbs sea level thrust? Have we ever heard that before?* http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2013/16399975QuoteUS\Canada: (855) 859-2056International: (404) 537-3406Conference ID: 16853657Thanks for the information! Here is a zipped mp3 recording of the pre-launch teleconference from last Sunday:http://www.gamefront.com/files/23879140/SpaceX+-SES-8+Pre-Launch+Conference+Nov+24+2013.zip
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 pounds of sea level thrust per engine.
Thanks for the file! the exact quote from Elon is: Quote from: Elon Muskwe're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors.
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.
Quote from: PreferToLurk on 11/28/2013 03:03 amThanks for the file! the exact quote from Elon is: Quote from: Elon Muskwe're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors. Elon drops the e's from "level"? How exactly is that pronounced?
Quote from: Elon Muskwe're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 pounds of sea level thrust per engine.
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?
Quote from: PreferToLurk on 11/28/2013 03:03 amQuote from: Elon Muskwe're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 pounds of sea level thrust per engine.If I understand correctly, the M1D's 70%-100% official throttling is with 100% being at 85% of its true potential. So with the expanded range as the new 100%, the M1D could actually throttle ~60%-100%.Being able to throttle down to 60% would put it much closer to the RD-180 throttle range and provide much greater control for landings.
If they increase thrust by 15% wouldn't they need also ~15% more fuel to take advantage of it? Hard to believe they can stretch the Falcon 9 another 15%. It's very stretched already.
Assuming of course that you did not lose the *center* engine.