Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION  (Read 16936 times)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
NSF Threads for Inmarsat 5 F4 : Discussion / Updates / L2 Coverage / ASDS / Party
NSF Articles for Inmarsat 5 F4 :
NET 1H 2017 on Falcon 9 from LC-39A at Cape Canaveral

L2 has an updated (post NROL-76) NET of May 15. Window opens at 1920 Eastern.


Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
   SpaceX News Articles (Recent)  /   SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews)
   SpaceX Dragon Articles  /  SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions)
   L2 SpaceX Section



[2013] Inmarsat to purchase fourth Inmarsat-5 satellite from Boeing
Quote
Inmarsat has triggered an option to purchase a fourth Inmarsat-5 spacecraft – under its existing contract with Boeing Satellite Systems International.

The programme schedule from Boeing has a satellite delivery date of mid-2016.

The fourth satellite will have a dual strategic role – firstly, as an early available spare in the unlikely event of a launch failure of any of the first three Inmarsat-5 satellites.
...
Boeing will immediately begin construction of the fourth Inmarsat-5 satellite. The total cost of the option and certain related expenditure will be between US$220 million and US$250 million.

Inmarsat: The I5 Satellites
Quote
The I-5 satellites, based on Boeing’s proven 702HP spacecraft platform, will deliver consistent high-performance download speeds of up to 50Mbps and up to 5Mbps over the uplink from their position in geosynchronous orbit. Their impressive statistics include:

    The I-5 body – at 6.98 metres (22.9ft), the height of a double decker bus
    User beams – 89 Ka-band beams generated by two transmit and two receive apertures
    Spot beams – six steerable spot beams to direct additional capacity where it is needed
    Solar arrays – a wingspan of 33.8 metres (111ft)
    Solar panels – five panels of ultra triple-junction gallium arsenide solar cells generate 15 kW of power at start of service and 13.8 kW by end of life
    Station-keeping thrusters – a xenon ion propulsion system (XIPS) handles in-orbit manoeuvring
    Launch mass – 6,100kg
    Mission lifespan – 15 years

Inmarsat 5 F4 on Gunter's Space Page

Inmarsat Jul 2 2014: launch contract announcement originally mentioned in this NSF thread Topic: Inmarsat to use SpaceX for satellite launches

So Inmarsat 5 F4 really is launching on Falcon, and EuropaSat/HellasSat 3 may move to a different launch vehicle but final decision not made yet.

SpaceNews: Inmarsat, juggling two launches, says SpaceX to return to flight in December
Quote
Inmarsat has three launch contracts with SpaceX. Up to now, it had planned to launch its Inmarsat 5-F4 Ka-band broadband mobile communications satellite on a Falcon 9 in late 2016; an S-band aeronautical-connectivity satellite on a new Falcon Heavy rocket in early 2017; and the first of the Inmarsat-6 satellites after that.
Quote
Inmarsat has decided to stick with SpaceX for the 5-F4 satellite, but to seek alternatives for the mid-2017 S-band satellite launch.

“It’s largely a function of where you are in the manifest,” Pearce said of Inmarsat’s launch reasoning. “With Inmarsat 5 F4, we’re well up in the queue — I think we are number five or six.
...

There was an interesting comment on Reddit by someone who appears to be a SpaceX employee:
Reddit comment by /u/Spiiice
Quote
We have more than one launch on the manifest that is considered expendable, and no recovery will be attempted.

This would make a lot of sense for a couple payloads that were originally assumed to be flying on FH (Inmarsat 5 F4, Europasat).

« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 01:52 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 8
Potential change in launch vehicle for "an" Inmarsat payload, consistent with information above. http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-spacex-may-lose-inmarsat-launch-order-1478165008
« Last Edit: 11/04/2016 05:50 PM by WHAP »
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Potential change in launch vehicle for "an" Inmarsat payload, consistent with information above. http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-spacex-may-lose-inmarsat-launch-order-1478165008

The payload that may change launchers is Europasat, not this one.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3269
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 332
Potential change in launch vehicle for "an" Inmarsat payload, consistent with information above. http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-spacex-may-lose-inmarsat-launch-order-1478165008
but it just got I-5-F4  from Proton last month.
Potential change in launch vehicle for "an" Inmarsat payload, consistent with information above. http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-spacex-may-lose-inmarsat-launch-order-1478165008

The payload that may change launchers is Europasat, not this one.
Europasat chose during investor call to defer discussion of a launcher switch until the next quarterly conference call.

Offline vapour_nudge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Australia
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 228
So is this the launch they just lost to Arianespace due to their delays?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
So is this the launch they just lost to Arianespace due to their delays?

Once again, no.  This isn't the S-band satellite.

Offline mrcln

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 37
Inmarsat's own press release on this seems to explicitly state that this is not the launch they moved to Arianespace:

Quote
Inmarsat will launch Inmarsat-5 F4, a Global Xpress (GX) satellite, with SpaceX.  This launch is planned for H1 2017 and Inmarsat is looking forward to continuing to work with SpaceX going forward.

from: http://www.inmarsat.com/news/inmarsat-signs-contract-launch-ean-satellite-arianespace/

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 8
So is this the launch they just lost to Arianespace due to their delays?

Once again, no.  This isn't the S-band satellite.

Everyone wants to be like Jim.  I realize vapour_nudge didn't ask what it was, but sometimes that's more helpful than saying what it wasn't.  According to Aerospace Daily, this was "the Inmarsat S-band/Hellas-Sat 3 telecommunications spacecraft". 
http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/inmarsat-switches-launch-spacex-arianespace
Also https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40756.msg1617381#msg1617381
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
So is this the launch they just lost to Arianespace due to their delays?

Once again, no.  This isn't the S-band satellite.

Everyone wants to be like Jim.  I realize vapour_nudge didn't ask what it was, but sometimes that's more helpful than saying what it wasn't.  According to Aerospace Daily, this was "the Inmarsat S-band/Hellas-Sat 3 telecommunications spacecraft". 
http://aviationweek.com/awinspace/inmarsat-switches-launch-spacex-arianespace
Also https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40756.msg1617381#msg1617381

Just to be clear, when WHAP says "this" he's talking about the satellite that switched launchers (Europasat/HellasSat 3), which is not Inmarsat 5 F4.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2016 04:21 PM by gongora »

Offline dglow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • California
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 1216
The manifest thread lists this mission as GTO with RTLS. Is that accurate or no?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #10 on: 01/20/2017 02:36 AM »
The manifest thread lists this mission as GTO with RTLS. Is that accurate or no?

No.  I'm betting on expendable for this flight, but we'll see if it ends up being an ASDS landing.

Offline ZachS09

The manifest thread lists this mission as GTO with RTLS. Is that accurate or no?

No.  I'm betting on expendable for this flight, but we'll see if it ends up being an ASDS landing.

We've never seen an expendable Falcon 9 mission since TürkmenÄlem 52E/MonacoSat in April 2015.
"Falcon 9 has landed. Landing operators, move into Procedure 11.100 on Recovery Net."

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 221
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #12 on: 01/20/2017 04:44 AM »
The manifest thread lists this mission as GTO with RTLS. Is that accurate or no?

No.  I'm betting on expendable for this flight, but we'll see if it ends up being an ASDS landing.

We've never seen an expendable Falcon 9 mission since TürkmenÄlem 52E/MonacoSat in April 2015.

Well expect to see some in the future.

Quote from: Spiiice
We have more than one launch on the manifest that is considered expendable, and no recovery will be attempted.

...

new [cores]!
...I'm honestly pretty surprised by that myself.

Quote from: Spiiice
This is about right. Upcoming expendable F9 launches will skip the legs 'n' fins, for example.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2017 04:44 AM by old_sellsword »

Offline ZachS09

Spiiice, when you said "skip the legs 'n fins", are you saying that SpaceX will remove the legs and fins from the core, or will they leave them on the core while disarmed?
"Falcon 9 has landed. Landing operators, move into Procedure 11.100 on Recovery Net."

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #14 on: 01/20/2017 01:38 PM »
Spiiice, when you said "skip the legs 'n fins", are you saying that SpaceX will remove the legs and fins from the core, or will they leave them on the core while disarmed?

Spiiice is a user on Reddit, and he was saying that expendable flights won't have legs and fins.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #15 on: 01/20/2017 01:41 PM »
If expendable then there's no need to toss away expensive legs and fins. These things are installed at the launch site, so this step would just be skipped.

HOWEVER, it's my strong hope that Block 5 (1.3? Fullest Thrust??) or FH would be available by launch time, thereby not having to go the expendable route. I think it's baked right into SpaceX's very core to not expend (<- see what I did there?)
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1143
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #16 on: 01/20/2017 02:13 PM »
If expendable then there's no need to toss away expensive legs and fins. These things are installed at the launch site, so this step would just be skipped.

HOWEVER, it's my strong hope that Block 5 (1.3? Fullest Thrust??) or FH would be available by launch time, thereby not having to go the expendable route. I think it's baked right into SpaceX's very core to not expend (<- see what I did there?)

I don't think block 5 will do much in that regard. It is more about ease of reusability. They need to do some expendable flights because FH is not yet ready for regular flight and flight rates. Which will need block 5.

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #17 on: 01/20/2017 02:58 PM »
What does "NET 1H" mean?  Oh, is it 'first half'?
« Last Edit: 01/20/2017 02:58 PM by Norm38 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5813
  • Likes Given: 4323
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #18 on: 01/20/2017 03:03 PM »
No earlier than the first half of the year. As in, this is the very earliest it could launch.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #19 on: 01/20/2017 03:12 PM »
What does "NET 1H" mean?  Oh, is it 'first half'?

Yes, first half (whether I type 1H or H1 might depend on the phase of the moon or how much coffee I've had that morning, I'm not terribly consistent).  There is a quote above where they said they were around fifth or sixth in the queue, so this should be in the next couple flights after SES-10.

Online Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - H1 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #20 on: 01/20/2017 04:57 PM »
Expendables might make sense from the point of view of "we have these old-spec cores that are iffy for reuse anyway, shiny new block 5s coming next that are designed for easy reuse... and some FH launches that are late, but could fly on an expendable F9. How about we just toss a few of these old spec boosters, get some pressure off the manifest - win win. I mean, we're running low on storage space for recovered boosters anyway"

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - NET 1H 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #21 on: 01/20/2017 05:10 PM »
If expendable then there's no need to toss away expensive legs and fins. These things are installed at the launch site, so this step would just be skipped.

HOWEVER, it's my strong hope that Block 5 (1.3? Fullest Thrust??) or FH would be available by launch time, thereby not having to go the expendable route. I think it's baked right into SpaceX's very core to not expend (<- see what I did there?)

I don't think block 5 will do much in that regard. It is more about ease of reusability. They need to do some expendable flights because FH is not yet ready for regular flight and flight rates. Which will need block 5.
I do think that there was some some loss of performance with the current "safe" COPV configuration/fuel loading procedures.  It seems to me that longer load time, warmer helium, and more COPVs would all contribute to less dense LOX as well as a slight reduction in volume.  So there should be at least a small bump in performance with Block 5 above the current configuration/procedures.

I won't be surprised if there are a couple of expendable launches but it's funny that it already ready feels "wasteful" to me.  Times are a changing. :)
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3586
  • Liked: 2117
  • Likes Given: 2961
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - H1 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #22 on: 01/20/2017 11:17 PM »
Expendables might make sense from the point of view of "we have these old-spec cores that are iffy for reuse anyway, shiny new block 5s coming next that are designed for easy reuse... and some FH launches that are late, but could fly on an expendable F9. How about we just toss a few of these old spec boosters, get some pressure off the manifest - win win. I mean, we're running low on storage space for recovered boosters anyway"

Interesting 'problem'...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - H1 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #23 on: 01/22/2017 03:22 PM »
If expendable then there's no need to toss away expensive legs and fins. These things are installed at the launch site, so this step would just be skipped.

HOWEVER, it's my strong hope that Block 5 (1.3? Fullest Thrust??) or FH would be available by launch time, thereby not having to go the expendable route. I think it's baked right into SpaceX's very core to not expend (<- see what I did there?)

I don't think block 5 will do much in that regard. It is more about ease of reusability. They need to do some expendable flights because FH is not yet ready for regular flight and flight rates. Which will need block 5.
My reference to higher performance of Block 5 is from Elon.
From Reddit...

"Here's Elon's discussion of Block 5 from his October 23 AMA:

*"Final Falcon 9 has a lot of minor refinements that collectively are important, but uprated thrust and improved legs are the most significant.*

*"Actually, I think the F9 boosters could be used almost indefinitely, so long as there is scheduled maintenance and careful inspections. Falcon 9 Block 5 -- the final version in the series -- is the one that has the most performance and is designed for easy reuse, so it just makes sense to focus on that long term and retire the earlier versions. Block 5 starts production in about 3 months and initial flight is in 6 to 8 months, so there isn't much point in ground testing Block 3 or 4 much beyond a few reflights."*

Essentially the same as the latest tweet (wonder if the schedule shift relates to making provisions for the future new and improved COPVs, or maybe just working through the backlog of earlier generation boosters). So the main upgrades are greater thrust, improved landing legs, and better design for reuse.
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - H1 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #24 on: 01/22/2017 05:31 PM »
Payloads this heavy just aren't meant for F9R, and block 5 is highly unlikely to change that.

Offline Chris Bergin

L2 has an updated (post NROL-76) NET of May 15. Window opens at 1920 Eastern.

Offline envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 363
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #26 on: 04/07/2017 01:56 PM »
Guess the NROL-76 delay wasn't quite long enough for this launch to jump the queue?

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #27 on: 04/07/2017 01:59 PM »
Somewhat late to bring this one forward - a longer slip for NROL-76 could change that, presumably? (the 2-week turnaround on the pad appears to be the constraint at the moment)

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #28 on: 04/07/2017 02:58 PM »
Why are launch providers not in a position to dictate to customers that delays on the customer's side mean they get pushed down the queue? After all, this has financial implications for the launch provider. Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?


Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
  • Liked: 1621
  • Likes Given: 656
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #29 on: 04/07/2017 03:06 PM »
Why are launch providers not in a position to dictate to customers that delays on the customer's side mean they get pushed down the queue? After all, this has financial implications for the launch provider. Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?
I think the reason is that the launch flow is highly pipelined, and there aren't multiples of most things.  So it's not easy to leapfrog the launch schedule for small delays, since flight X is using equipment Y for a whole week, and it would cost more than it would save to get flight X off of Y and put flight X+1 on there early. (And then flight X still has to use equipment Y for a full week sometime later, delaying flights after that one...)

I think where you do see leapfrogging happen is when the delay becomes known at a time where there's a natural gap between pipeline stages and there is storage available. (Storage at the cape is getting quite tight we hear.). The step where a stage is trucked from McGregor to the Cape seems to be one such gap.  But NROL is already at the Cape, and all indications are that the delay was caused by some payload problem discovered during integration with the F9.  So it's already taking up its pipeline stage, and it would only slow up the flow (including problem resolution) to take the payload off the rocket and move everything out of the hanger.  You might get Inmarsat launched quicker, but NROL would end up taking up even more time when it got back in line.

If SpaceX is successful in getting land-to-reflight times significantly down, necessarily including the payload integration portion of that process, then I'd think you'd see more leapfrogging.  But while the launch flow is months long with a single copy of each pipeline stage it's really hard to make short-notice swaps.

IMNSHO, I'm not an expert, have no special knowledge, etc, etc.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 03:13 PM by cscott »

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #30 on: 04/07/2017 03:09 PM »
Why are launch providers not in a position to dictate to customers that delays on the customer's side mean they get pushed down the queue? After all, this has financial implications for the launch provider. Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?
I don't know how the SpaceX payload processing is configured, but security issues may make it difficult to parallel process with a classified payload.

Also, this probably isn't enough notice to get Inmarsat prepped by the original NROL date.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #31 on: 04/07/2017 03:11 PM »
Why are launch providers not in a position to dictate to customers that delays on the customer's side mean they get pushed down the queue? After all, this has financial implications for the launch provider. Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?

For a two week delay it's not likely to be worth the trouble.  Each payload has dozens of people supporting it.  It might also be difficult to quickly switch between highly classified and unclassified payloads.  The boosters will also be set up differently, NROL-76 is RTLS and the next flight should be expendable.  Some of the more picky customers may also follow their booster through construction and testing (not sure if the current contracts allow this, but you can bet the upcoming Air Force launches will.)

Online mn

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • United States
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #32 on: 04/07/2017 04:03 PM »
Why are launch providers not in a position to dictate to customers that delays on the customer's side mean they get pushed down the queue? After all, this has financial implications for the launch provider. Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?
I think the reason is that the launch flow is highly pipelined, and there aren't multiples of most things.  So it's not easy to leapfrog the launch schedule for small delays, since flight X is using equipment Y for a whole week, and it would cost more than it would save to get flight X off of Y and put flight X+1 on there early. (And then flight X still has to use equipment Y for a full week sometime later, delaying flights after that one...)

I think where you do see leapfrogging happen is when the delay becomes known at a time where there's a natural gap between pipeline stages and there is storage available. (Storage at the cape is getting quite tight we hear.). The step where a stage is trucked from McGregor to the Cape seems to be one such gap.  But NROL is already at the Cape, and all indications are that the delay was caused by some payload problem discovered during integration with the F9.  So it's already taking up its pipeline stage, and it would only slow up the flow (including problem resolution) to take the payload off the rocket and move everything out of the hanger.  You might get Inmarsat launched quicker, but NROL would end up taking up even more time when it got back in line.

If SpaceX is successful in getting land-to-reflight times significantly down, necessarily including the payload integration portion of that process, then I'd think you'd see more leapfrogging.  But while the launch flow is months long with a single copy of each pipeline stage it's really hard to make short-notice swaps.

IMNSHO, I'm not an expert, have no special knowledge, etc, etc.

Can they use the integration facilities at LC-40 for parallel integration (at least up to mounting on the TEL)? Or is mounting on the TEL fairly early in the process? Or is moving from LC-40 to LC-39 not practical after some point in the prep process?

Is there any active work being done to be able to prep two rockets simultaneously? or is that a long way off?

Offline Wolfram66

IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #34 on: 04/07/2017 04:46 PM »
IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?

What is a F9FT-Slick config?

Offline Wolfram66

IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?

What is a F9FT-Slick config?
SLICK = Expendable - No Legs or Grid-fins

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 221
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #36 on: 04/07/2017 04:57 PM »
IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?

What is a F9FT-Slick config?
SLICK = Expendable - No Legs or Grid-fins

Just so you're aware, people were confused because "SLC" is pronounced "Slick."

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
  • California
  • Liked: 2122
  • Likes Given: 1210
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #37 on: 04/07/2017 05:12 PM »
IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?

Is that an official (SpaceX) term, or did you just make it up?

Offline Aerospace Dilettante

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #38 on: 04/07/2017 06:24 PM »
IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?

Is that an official (SpaceX) term, or did you just make it up?

I figured it was burrowed from the vi't nam-era slang term for a UH-1 Huey without external weapons attached.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
  • California
  • Liked: 2122
  • Likes Given: 1210
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #39 on: 04/07/2017 06:31 PM »
IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?

Is that an official (SpaceX) term, or did you just make it up?

I figured it was burrowed from the vi't nam-era slang term for a UH-1 Huey without external weapons attached.

Yes, but let's use terms that official and/or have no chance of confusion. Otherwise we can all make up our own names for things, like "F9 Avocado".  ;)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • US
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #40 on: 04/07/2017 06:41 PM »
There's already a perfectly useful word for the F9 expendable configuration: expendable.  We really don't need more terms for it.

Offline Wolfram66

There's already a perfectly useful word for the F9 expendable configuration: expendable.  We really don't need more terms for it.
Why does everyone dwell, ad nauseam, on minutia? Are the EXPENDABLE F9FT's at the cape or not? And FYI Slick comes from Aircraft terminology, meaning "Nothing Hanging", External Stores, or pylons/hardpoints. An F9 S1 can have Legs and Fins and still be expendable.

Offline envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 363
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #42 on: 04/07/2017 07:53 PM »
There's already a perfectly useful word for the F9 expendable configuration: expendable.  We really don't need more terms for it.
Why does everyone dwell, ad nauseam, on minutia? Are the EXPENDABLE F9FT's at the cape or not? And FYI Slick comes from Aircraft terminology, meaning "Nothing Hanging", External Stores, or pylons/hardpoints. An F9 S1 can have Legs and Fins and still be expendable.

Not in any practical sense. Recovery hardware always means a recovery attempt... it's too heavy and expensive to put on otherwise.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3735
  • Liked: 1150
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #43 on: 04/07/2017 09:40 PM »
There's already a perfectly useful word for the F9 expendable configuration: expendable.  We really don't need more terms for it.
Why does everyone dwell, ad nauseam, on minutia?
You don't come here often, do you? ;)

Quote
Are the EXPENDABLE F9FT's at the cape or not?
EchoStar 23 launched on an expendable F9. You can see the rocket without legs or grid fins. 
(It looked kind of naked to me....)
It launched from the cape so it was at the cape, but what specifically are you asking?
They are not distinct rockets, just regular Falcon 9s prepared differently.

Quote
And FYI Slick comes from Aircraft terminology, meaning "Nothing Hanging", External Stores, or pylons/hardpoints. An F9 S1 can have Legs and Fins and still be expendable.
Interesting, but it would be confusing here.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline feynmanrules

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • florida
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #44 on: 04/07/2017 10:40 PM »
Quote
Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?

I think because of of setup times and a lack of launchpads, a late fee might make more sense.

Also remember that spacex is always pushing the envelop and being late is a common side-effect.  Trying to penalize customers for missing a date probably isn't going to go over well.   ULA could probably do that if they wanted to, but they also charge enough they shouldn't care.

Maybe if spx ever gets to a true-service business model, where rockets are going up everyday with whatever payload is ready and they have enough parallelization in their flow to allow for delays... doesn't seem to be case today.

in summary- may15th it is! (back on topic ;)
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 10:40 PM by feynmanrules »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 127
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #45 on: 04/07/2017 10:49 PM »
As KSC moves right two weeks, perhaps Vandenberg can move left two weeks.

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1274
  • California
  • Liked: 1007
  • Likes Given: 1134
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #46 on: 04/09/2017 12:58 AM »
In the discussion of why Inmarsat can't jump left into the NROL slot, in my experience, it's almost always easier to delay scheduling than it is to advance it.  There are payload processing teams from both Boeing and Inmarsat that have to be scheduled.  With a short delay, you're essentially borrowing time from an inexhaustible source (i.e. the future).  Advancing is much trickier.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.  But, in practice, there is.  --Jan van de Snepscheut

Offline smfarmer11

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #47 on: 04/09/2017 03:46 PM »
Also, this is Spacex's first NRO launch, they probably want everything to go off without a hitch so they wouldn't be willing to risk having the launch pushed further back. The NRO launch is still only one month behind its original contracted launch time, and keeping it as close as possible is better for getting potential future contracts.

Offline Chris Bergin

SpaceX Opens Media Accreditation for Inmarsat-5 F4 Mission

Media Contact: John Taylor
media@spacex.com

HAWTHORNE, Calif. – April 10, 2017. Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX's Inmarsat-5 F4 mission from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch is targeted for no earlier than May.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 will deliver Inmarsat-5 F4 to a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).

Members of the media who are interested in covering the launch must fill out this media accreditation form by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, April 13.

Members of the media who are foreign nationals must also provide photocopies of their valid visa and passport to media@spacex.com

Requesting accreditation is not required of media who hold current annual press credentials issued by Kennedy Space Center security, but it is appreciated for planning purposes.
                                                                                                                                       
Kennedy Space Center security, not SpaceX, decides which media are credentialed to cover launches from LC-39A. Please keep in mind simply making the request in a timely fashion does not guarantee the request will be granted. Be sure to provide all the information included on the SpaceX form.

More details on the mission and pre-launch media activities will be made available at a later date closer to launch.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1395
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #49 on: 04/25/2017 04:11 PM »
Quote
Our #GlobalXpress satellite has arrived at @SpaceX for testing & fuelling in prep for launch! #I5F4 - increasing broadband comms worldwide!

https://twitter.com/inmarsatglobal/status/856901747733925889

Tags: