Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION  (Read 276631 times)

Offline BabaORileyUSA

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
The values you are showing for the SES-10 are after a velocity augmentation maneuver.  The apogee height of Elset One was 33,460 km, about 1,200 km lower than what you are showing.
I'm using the oldest TLE listed at Space-Track, Epoch Fri Mar 31 2017 13:57:30 GMT, 14 or 15 hours after launch so time enough for one complete orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

Isn't it odd that the stage is now at a 240 km perigee, over 20 km higher than the first TLE?

The Stage 2 has the lower apogee height, but the earliest elset for the payload has the higher one.
Yes, it's possible there was a PVA burn, but much more likely there was a Stage 2 CCAM/depletion burn which lowered its apogee from an initial one that was the same as the payload. Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot.


Both a payload PVA and a second stage CCAM/depletion burn occurred.   The apogee height I reported was from 18SPCS Elset One (JSpOC no longer has that responsibility), which was prior to the completion of the first Rev, where the PVA burn occurred.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2017 05:23 PM by BabaORileyUSA »

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 1019
They were clear it was the first case.  "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.

Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'

The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.

Online kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 983
  • Likes Given: 226
I am seriously wondering if the pause we saw in webcast was nothing more than trying to interpret complex data. It just took a few seconds to process, which may look like something is wrong, but really is the strain of doing the complex math.
Sharknado 5: Global Swarming
Make America Bait Again!

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Liked: 1655
  • Likes Given: 656
They were clear it was the first case.  "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.

Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'

The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Also, SpaceX told us directly on L2 there was no anomaly? As we keep repeating?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2017 05:02 PM by cscott »

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 1019
They were clear it was the first case.  "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.

Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'

The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Also, SpaceX told us directly on L2 there was no anomaly? As we keep repeating?

Not quite. They reiterated that the orbit was good, no shortfall, contract fulfilled, mission success. This is known and not debated. But it's perfectly possible to have a serious anomaly (failure almost) and still make "good enough" or even perfect orbit. Some ULA launches have been this way.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1329
  • Liked: 795
  • Likes Given: 642
This is getting ridiculous.  Please stop.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7671
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4555
  • Likes Given: 3064
This is getting ridiculous.  Please stop.

Yes. Let's draw a line under this and move on. Don't make me make sure my delete button still works.

Edit: it does... Sigh.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2017 07:25 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 3399
Substantially less than half the cost of a new stage... their cost for a first stage is $35-40 M at most.

In absolute dollar terms, that's something between $15M and $20M.  How does this compare to the absolute cost to refurbish a shuttle? (not the first one, but after they'd done a hundred...)

That's about $1M per week as a thumbrule, assuming manpower costs predominate. 
« Last Edit: 04/06/2017 09:38 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline manoweb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Tracer of rays
  • Hayward CA
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 82
SES-10 is now in GEO

Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Liked: 508
  • Likes Given: 133
SES-10 is now in GEO

Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?

Yes, for sats that use chemical propulsion.

All-Electric sats take longer.

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 99
They were clear it was the first case.  "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.

Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'

The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.

Now that NROL-76 and the next launch are postponed it gets interesting.

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 18
Unless you have publicly available information this is due to an anomaly of some sorts during SES-10, it means nothing in the context of this discussion.

Offline chad1011

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Anderson, SC
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 219
Please see Lars post above... The orbit was acceptable to SpaceX and SES.  NROL-76 is most likely a payload delay.

Yep, we've been waiting for the new date to become documented and now it is via L2 KSC/Cape scheduling.

NET April 30, same window.

Static Fire on April 26.

No reasons given, so likely the payload (which isn't talkative as we're talking about a NROL bird).

Edit: Add Chris's post
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 01:53 PM by chad1011 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7430
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1422
  • Likes Given: 4417
SES-10 is now in GEO

Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?

Yes, for sats that use chemical propulsion.

All-Electric sats take longer.
For highly experienced operators with experience on the platform, 10 days is normal. New platform or new operators usually take longer. 60 to 90 days is not unheard of.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Liked: 1655
  • Likes Given: 656
Yeah: F9=not classified, payload=classified. We've got good sources inside SpaceX. If we're not hearing anything about the reason, even in L2, it's because it's payload-related, as Chris suggests.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
  • Canada
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 390
It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.

It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".


Offline MP99

It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.

It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
KSC + CCFAS - that's neat. Good spotting.

Cheers, Martin

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 21
The first two pairs of FH side boosters are - apparently - recycled F9 cores, so B1021 won't be alone in launching from both pads.

There's also potential for one of the Pad 39a F9 cores relaunching from LC40.



Edit: correct speling
« Last Edit: 04/09/2017 08:19 AM by vanoord »

Online yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 12
The first two pairs of FH side boosters are - apparently - recycled F9 cores, so B1021 won't be alone in launching from both pads.

There's also potential for one of the Pad 39a F9?cores relaunching from LC40.
The booster from Iridium flight 1 might top them all - launch from both coasts.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7337
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3676
  • Likes Given: 778
It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.

It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
Booster recruitment:

Joins SpaceX, sail the seas, see the world!
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Tags: