NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Missions Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 02/16/2015 12:29 PM

Title: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/16/2015 12:29 PM
Discussion thread for GovSat-1 satellite launching on Falcon 9

NSF Threads for GovSat-1 : Discussion (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36807.0) / Updates (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44691.0) / L2 Coverage January-February (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44312.0)
NSF Articles for GovSat-1 :
   [Jan. 26, 2018] SpaceX static fire flight-proven booster for SES-16/GovSat1 mission (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-static-fire-ses-16-govsat1-mission/)
   [Jan. 31, 2018]Falcon 9 launches GovSat-1 from SLC-40 – Booster survives water landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-govsat-1-falcon-9-launch/)

Successful launch on January 31, 2018 at 1625 EST/2125 UTC on reused Falcon 9 (1032.2) from SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral.    The first stage landed intact in the ocean after testing a more aggressive landing burn.


First order for the company since the merger?

ORBITAL ATK’S GEOSTAR-3 SATELLITE PLATFORM GAINS TRACTION AMONG WORLD’S TOP SATELLITE OPERATORS
Quote
SES Selects Orbital ATK to Build SES-16/GovSat Satellite for Mid-2017 Delivery
Third GEOStar-3 Spacecraft Ordered Since 2014 Introduction


Dulles, Virginia, 16 February 2015 – Orbital ATK, Inc. (NYSE: OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, announced today it received a contract to build a communications satellite for LuxGovSat, a newly created joint venture between SES and the Luxembourg government. SES-16/GovSat will be used to provide military satellite bandwidth to governments and institutions. The Luxembourg government has pre-committed to a significant amount of capacity in support of its NATO obligations.

Based on Orbital ATK’s recently introduced GEOStar-3™ satellite platform, SES-16/GovSat is a multi-mission satellite using dedicated military frequencies (X-band and military Ka-band) to provide high-powered and fully steerable spot beams for multiple government-specific missions. It is Orbital ATK’s 40th GEOStar satellite sale, the third GEOStar-3 satellite purchased, and seventh GEOStar satellite to be built for SES.

“SES is one of the world’s most prominent satellite operators and this contract demonstrates a continued confidence in our GEOStar product line. As a customer-focused company known for innovation, reliability and affordability, we are pleased to provide LuxGovSat with a high-quality satellite that will meet expectations in cost, schedule and performance,” said Chris Richmond, VP and GM of the Commercial Satellite Division at Orbital ATK’s Space Systems Group. “Based on our exceptional record of delivering flight-proven satellites on time and on budget, Orbital ATK continues to be a partner that SES and the Government of Luxembourg can count on.”

Orbital ATK’s GEOStar satellite platform can accommodate all types of commercial communications payloads and is compatible with all major commercial launchers. The GEOStar design is optimized for satellite missions requiring up to eight kilowatts of payload power.

The company also offers a hybrid electric propulsion GEOStar-3 design that provides the benefits of higher power/higher payload capability while still maintaining advantageous launch costs.

Martin Halliwell, Chief Technology Officer of SES, commented, “The joint procurement of SES-16/GovSat opens a new chapter in the strategically important government business vertical and in the cooperation between SES and the Luxembourg government. SES-16/GovSat will ensure flexibility for the ever-changing missions of governments and institutions in the security, defense and civil arena and will allow for the deployment of integrated and smart end-to-end managed solutions for these demanding customers.”

SES-16/GovSat will be designed, manufactured and tested at Orbital ATK’s satellite manufacturing facility in Dulles, Virginia. It is slated for delivery in mid-2017. Once in orbit, it will be positioned on the European geostationary orbit arc with coverage areas over Europe, the Middle East and Africa. It will have a service life of 15 years.

Orbital ATK’s Space Systems Group (SSG) is an industry leader in satellite technology and advanced rated space systems providing a broad portfolio of products and services for commercial, military, civil government and international customers. The Group designs, manufactures and operates small to medium-class satellites for communication, imaging, science, human exploration and military operations. SSG also specializes in market-leading integrated thermal control systems, space components that power and enable satellites of all classes, satellite servicing technology and premier technical engineering services to government agencies and laboratories.

 

GovSat (https://www.govsat.lu)
SES Upcoming Launches (https://www.ses.com/our-network/launches)
GovSat-1 on SES.com (https://www.ses.com/network/satellites/371) / GovSat-1 on Gunter's Space Page (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-16.htm)



Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
   SpaceX News Articles (Recent) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/)  /   SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0)
   SpaceX Dragon Articles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon/)  /  SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0)
   L2 SpaceX Section (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/16/2015 04:21 PM
Another article on this , SES have 3 satellites on order max weight is 4200kg. This gives them choice of Ariane 5 or F9.

http://spacenews.com/airbus-boeing-and-orbital-atk-split-ses-satellite-order/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/17/2015 12:11 PM
The interesting thing is that SES-16 (http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2015/20635031) is one of three new satellite orders from SES announced at the same time, and unlike this one the other two are fully electric-propulsion comsats. SES-14 (http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2015/20634869) will be built by Airbus DS on their Eurostar-3000EOR bus and SES-15 (http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2015/20634941) will be built by Boeing on their BSS-702SP (same bus as the twin comsats due for launch in 1.5-2 weeks time  ;)).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Sam Ho on 03/23/2015 08:42 PM
Another article on this , SES have 3 satellites on order max weight is 4200kg. This gives them choice of Ariane 5 or F9.

http://spacenews.com/airbus-boeing-and-orbital-atk-split-ses-satellite-order/

SES confirmed F9 as the launch vehicle a little afterwards.  Apparently, weight growth in Ariane upper passengers means that it is now too heavy for the lower slot.

Quote
Luxembourg-based SES, which was the first established commercial satellite fleet operator to use Falcon 9 and has another launch scheduled with SpaceX this summer, said its SES-14 and SES-16/GovSat satellites would be launched on separate Falcon 9 vehicles.

http://spacenews.com/ses-books-falcon-9-launches-for-ses-14-and-ses-16-govsat/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/23/2015 09:20 PM
Another article on this , SES have 3 satellites on order max weight is 4200kg. This gives them choice of Ariane 5 or F9.

http://spacenews.com/airbus-boeing-and-orbital-atk-split-ses-satellite-order/

SES confirmed F9 as the launch vehicle a little afterwards.  Apparently, weight growth in Ariane upper passengers means that it is now too heavy for the lower slot.

http://spacenews.com/ses-books-falcon-9-launches-for-ses-14-and-ses-16-govsat/
The question then will be whether SES will request an expendable F9, which in its enhanced version could deliver this to a very good orbit (1300 m/s to GEO, if they are willing to accept a VERY high apogee) or whether they will get a re-usable F9 to a more traditional orbit (1500-1600 m/s to GEO) and get a lower price for the rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jakusb on 07/22/2017 09:30 AM
https://twitter.com/govsatlu/status/888375632584900608

GovSat-1 launch expected for December 2017 #GovSat1 #satellite #Luxembourg #Europe #Defence 100komma7.lu/article/aktual…

Edit: added the tweet contents. Just realized that Tapatalk now automatically displays tweets from just the link alone, but the forum (accessed directly) does not..

Text from related 21 juli article:
De Satellit GovSat-1 dierft mat liichtem Retard lancéiert ginn. Den initiale Plang war e Lancement am Oktober. Vun der privater US-Entreprise SpaceX hätt een elo eng Zäitfënster confirméiert kritt. A priori fir Dezember, sou de Generaldirekter vu LuxGovSat Patrick Biewer. Enn 2017, respektiv Ufank 2018 soll de Betrib vum sougenannte Militär-Satellit kënnen ufänken

So SpaceX gave LuxGovSat CEO Patrick Biewer notice the launch is now planned for December
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cppetrie on 07/22/2017 01:17 PM
https://twitter.com/govsatlu/status/888375632584900608

GovSat-1 launch expected for December 2017 #GovSat1 #satellite #Luxembourg #Europe #Defence 100komma7.lu/article/aktual…

Edit: added the tweet contents. Just realized that Tapatalk now automatically displays tweets from just the link alone, but the forum (accessed directly) does not..

Text from related 21 juli article:
De Satellit GovSat-1 dierft mat liichtem Retard lancéiert ginn. Den initiale Plang war e Lancement am Oktober. Vun der privater US-Entreprise SpaceX hätt een elo eng Zäitfënster confirméiert kritt. A priori fir Dezember, sou de Generaldirekter vu LuxGovSat Patrick Biewer. Enn 2017, respektiv Ufank 2018 soll de Betrib vum sougenannte Militär-Satellit kënnen ufänken

So SpaceX gave LuxGovSat CEO Patrick Biewer notice the launch is now planned for December
Possible candidate for another flight-proven booster?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jakusb on 07/22/2017 01:35 PM
https://twitter.com/govsatlu/status/888375632584900608

GovSat-1 launch expected for December 2017 #GovSat1 #satellite #Luxembourg #Europe #Defence 100komma7.lu/article/aktual…

Edit: added the tweet contents. Just realized that Tapatalk now automatically displays tweets from just the link alone, but the forum (accessed directly) does not..

Text from related 21 juli article:
De Satellit GovSat-1 dierft mat liichtem Retard lancéiert ginn. Den initiale Plang war e Lancement am Oktober. Vun der privater US-Entreprise SpaceX hätt een elo eng Zäitfënster confirméiert kritt. A priori fir Dezember, sou de Generaldirekter vu LuxGovSat Patrick Biewer. Enn 2017, respektiv Ufank 2018 soll de Betrib vum sougenannte Militär-Satellit kënnen ufänken

So SpaceX gave LuxGovSat CEO Patrick Biewer notice the launch is now planned for December
Possible candidate for another flight-proven booster?

Well I asked them. Small chance but better then no chance.

https://twitter.com/jacobw35/status/888657129892179968

@GovSatLu On a new or flight proven booster?

Like and retweet to increase my chances please.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ragmar on 10/05/2017 12:24 AM
Luxembourg media saying that it's January 2018 now

http://5minutes.rtl.lu/laune/actu/1079131.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Comga on 10/12/2017 07:51 PM
Quote from: SpaceFlightNow
SES is considering launching its next satellite — SES 16 developed in partnership with the government of Luxembourg — with a reused Falcon 9 booster in January.

Article Link (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/12/spacex-launches-its-15th-mission-of-the-year/)

SES 16 slips to January and on a re-used booster (as I think can be expected for most SES flights from here on out).

That statement is ambiguous as to what they are "considering", a launch delay into January, use of a "flight proven" first stage, or both.

In any case, gongora's manifest (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1702572#msg1702572) currently has the SES-16 launch in January.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 10/12/2017 08:21 PM
Quote from: SpaceFlightNow
SES is considering launching its next satellite — SES 16 developed in partnership with the government of Luxembourg — with a reused Falcon 9 booster in January.

Article Link (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/12/spacex-launches-its-15th-mission-of-the-year/)

SES 16 slips to January and on a re-used booster (as I think can be expected for most SES flights from here on out).

That statement is ambiguous as to what they are "considering", a launch delay into January, use of a "flight proven" first stage, or both.

In any case, gongora's manifest (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1702572#msg1702572) currently has the SES-16 launch in January.

It's pretty clear in the article that SES wants to launch ASAP, so them "considering" a delay doesn't make much sense. They would only delay if the sat or the LV isn't ready.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 10/12/2017 09:22 PM
But I think "January" and "reused booster" are related: the slip might be even further if they decide they need a new booster.  SpaceX is offering them a reused booster in January, as one package.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 11/28/2017 04:01 PM
Another FCC app (crossposting from Reddit).

This  (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=81281&RequestTimeout=1000)is for mission 1389 a RTLS from SLC-40 that will launch in H1 2018. Any idea as to what this one is?

All three of the FCC applications for this flight were granted on Nov. 27 for flight from SLC-40 NET Jan. 15 with droneship landing.  I'm assuming it's GovSat-1.

Quote
MOBILE: Autonomous Drone Ship, within 10 nautical miles, within 18.52 km, centered around NL 28-08-39; WL 74-03-19
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: tvg98 on 12/05/2017 07:08 PM
Quote
SES-16/GovSat will feature a special port, which allows a hosted payload to dock with it in orbit. The port will be the support structure for an unidentified hosted payload to be launched on a future SES satellite and then released in the vicinity of SES-16. The 200 kg, 500-watt payload then will travel to SES-16 and attach itself.


http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-16.htm (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-16.htm)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/06/2017 04:09 PM
Has this been confirmed as a re-used booster? Or does NASA choosing to use a re-used booster free up core b1044 for this flight?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 12/06/2017 04:17 PM
Has this been confirmed as a re-used booster? Or does NASA choosing to use a re-used booster free up core b1044 for this flight?

I was convinced that B1044 was always chosen for the expendable Hispasat 30W-6 mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/08/2017 09:41 PM
Apparently SFN's schedule has updated so we can move this out of L2 too:

NET Jan 30.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Craig_VG on 12/22/2017 09:20 PM


SpaceX Opens Media Accreditation for GovSat-1 Mission

HAWTHORNE, Calif. – December 22, 2017. Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX's GovSat-1 mission from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The launch is targeted for no earlier than late January 2018.

 

A flight-proven Falcon 9 will deliver GovSat-1 to a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/22/2017 09:33 PM
Is it known what booster is assigned? I'd guess CRS-12 or OTV-5, maybe KoreaSat's
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/22/2017 09:45 PM
Is it known what booster is assigned? I'd guess CRS-12 or OTV-5, maybe KoreaSat's

There's some L2 info that can answer that question :)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42452.0
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: crandles57 on 12/31/2017 07:34 PM
Is it known what booster is assigned? I'd guess CRS-12 or OTV-5, maybe KoreaSat's

There's some L2 info that can answer that question :)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42452.0

When does this get declassified?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 12/31/2017 09:34 PM
Is it known what booster is assigned? I'd guess CRS-12 or OTV-5, maybe KoreaSat's

There's some L2 info that can answer that question :)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42452.0

When does this get declassified?

As far as I can tell there is just a guess in that L2 thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 01/01/2018 05:42 AM
And the answer in general is that L2 info gets "declassified" when it is confirmed with SpaceX and written up in an article.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 01/07/2018 01:58 AM
How would this satellite get from Dulles to the Cape?  Would it most likely be flown, and if so would it be on an AN-124?  I tried looking for AN-124 flights and  found one going Dulles-LAX-Merritt Island on Dec 3-4, and another AN-124 going Dulles-Kingston-Tampa on Dec 24 (which seems less likely).  Would these GEO sats ever just get trucked to the launch site from Dulles?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/07/2018 02:35 AM
And the answer in general is that L2 info gets "declassified" when it is confirmed with SpaceX and written up in an article.

This is why I want to get L2, I'm super impatient. I might buy 2 months just to test it out this year
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: octavo on 01/07/2018 04:14 AM
And the answer in general is that L2 info gets "declassified" when it is confirmed with SpaceX and written up in an article.

This is why I want to get L2, I'm super impatient. I might buy 2 months just to test it out this year
It's totally worth it, especially around launch times. In fact, just the renders by lamontagne and others that end up in the articles are worth it. There are plenty that don't make it indy the article, but are still great fanservice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/07/2018 04:31 AM
And the answer in general is that L2 info gets "declassified" when it is confirmed with SpaceX and written up in an article.

This is why I want to get L2, I'm super impatient. I might buy 2 months just to test it out this year
It's totally worth it, especially around launch times. In fact, just the renders by lamontagne and others that end up in the articles are worth it. There are plenty that don't make it indy the article, but are still great fanservice.

Alright, I need that in my life.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Star One on 01/07/2018 08:33 AM
Is this pretty certain now to fly before the FH demo flight?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/07/2018 08:27 PM
Is this pretty certain now to fly before the FH demo flight?
Expanding on your thought...

The Falcon Heavy Demo launch from LC-39A is, in essence, now NET simultaneous with the SES-16 launch from SLC-40.

How would this satellite get from Dulles to the Cape?  Would it most likely be flown, and if so would it be on an AN-124?  I tried looking for AN-124 flights and  found one going Dulles-LAX-Merritt Island on Dec 3-4, and another AN-124 going Dulles-Kingston-Tampa on Dec 24 (which seems less likely).  Would these GEO sats ever just get trucked to the launch site from Dulles?

Apparently, "we" don't know if the satellite has even been delivered to the launch site yet?  Would O/ATK or SES announce a successful delivery to the launch provider?  Or does Luxembourg want as little publicity as possible?

That appears to be a (the?) critical piece of missing information.

My non-expert opinion:
SES is a paying customer (vs. FH demo which is a test flight with no customer payload aboard).  A delay of a few days beyond NET Jan. 29 won't matter much in the "big picture" (How the Solar System Was Won).  SES-16 would be given priority in a parallel launch campaigns situation.

So IF the satellite has been delivered and is already being processed for launch;

AND IF Zuma launches tonight, as scheduled;

THEN SES-16 might progress directly through its launch campaign as soon as SLC-40 is cleared for another launch, launching before the Falcon Heavy Demo.

There's my deduction chain.  Any flaws?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Star One on 01/07/2018 08:29 PM
Is this pretty certain now to fly before the FH demo flight?
Expanding on your thought...

The Falcon Heavy Demo launch from LC-39A is, in essence, now NET simultaneous with the SES-16 launch from SLC-40.

Apparently, "we" don't know if the satellite has even been delivered to the launch site yet?  Would O/ATK or SES announce a successful delivery?  Or does Luxembourg want as little publicity as possible?

That appears to be a (the?) critical piece of missing information.

My non-expert opinion:
SES is a paying customer (vs. FH demo which is a test flight with no customer payload aboard).  A delay of a few days beyond NET Jan. 29 won't matter much in the "big picture" (How the Solar System Was Won).  SES-16 would be given priority in a parallel launch campaigns situation.

So IF the satellite has been delivered and is already being processed for launch;

AND IF Zuma launches tonight, as scheduled;

THEN SES-16 might progress directly through its launch campaign as soon as SLC-40 is cleared for another launch, launching before the Falcon Heavy Demo.

There's my deduction chain.  Any flaws?

In light of the above I can see the FH demo flight dropping into February.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/07/2018 08:43 PM
Is this pretty certain now to fly before the FH demo flight?
Expanding on your thought...

The Falcon Heavy Demo launch from LC-39A is, in essence, now NET simultaneous with the SES-16 launch from SLC-40.

Apparently, "we" don't know if the satellite has even been delivered to the launch site yet?  Would O/ATK or SES announce a successful delivery?  Or does Luxembourg want as little publicity as possible?

That appears to be a (the?) critical piece of missing information.

My non-expert opinion:
SES is a paying customer (vs. FH demo which is a test flight with no customer payload aboard).  A delay of a few days beyond NET Jan. 29 won't matter much in the "big picture" (How the Solar System Was Won).  SES-16 would be given priority in a parallel launch campaigns situation.

So IF the satellite has been delivered and is already being processed for launch;

AND IF Zuma launches tonight, as scheduled;

THEN SES-16 might progress directly through its launch campaign as soon as SLC-40 is cleared for another launch, launching before the Falcon Heavy Demo.

There's my deduction chain.  Any flaws?

In light of the above I can see the FH demo flight dropping into February.
In theory with AFTS and no need to fully reconfigure as is the case for a switch to a ULA launcher, they could both launch same day.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/07/2018 08:59 PM
Is this pretty certain now to fly before the FH demo flight?
Expanding on your thought...

The Falcon Heavy Demo launch from LC-39A is, in essence, now NET simultaneous with the SES-16 launch from SLC-40.

Apparently, "we" don't know if the satellite has even been delivered to the launch site yet?  Would O/ATK or SES announce a successful delivery?  Or does Luxembourg want as little publicity as possible?

That appears to be a (the?) critical piece of missing information.

My non-expert opinion:
SES is a paying customer (vs. FH demo which is a test flight with no customer payload aboard).  A delay of a few days beyond NET Jan. 29 won't matter much in the "big picture" (How the Solar System Was Won).  SES-16 would be given priority in a parallel launch campaigns situation.

So IF the satellite has been delivered and is already being processed for launch;

AND IF Zuma launches tonight, as scheduled;

THEN SES-16 might progress directly through its launch campaign as soon as SLC-40 is cleared for another launch, launching before the Falcon Heavy Demo.

There's my deduction chain.  Any flaws?

In light of the above I can see the FH demo flight dropping into February.
In theory with AFTS and no need to fully reconfigure as is the case for a switch to a ULA launcher, they could both launch same day.

Good point re: hardware and the range.

What about SpaceX personnel?  Are there enough trained staff, at this juncture, to execute two simultaneous, but staggered, countdowns at launch complexes several miles apart?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Star One on 01/07/2018 09:45 PM
Is this pretty certain now to fly before the FH demo flight?
Expanding on your thought...

The Falcon Heavy Demo launch from LC-39A is, in essence, now NET simultaneous with the SES-16 launch from SLC-40.

Apparently, "we" don't know if the satellite has even been delivered to the launch site yet?  Would O/ATK or SES announce a successful delivery?  Or does Luxembourg want as little publicity as possible?

That appears to be a (the?) critical piece of missing information.

My non-expert opinion:
SES is a paying customer (vs. FH demo which is a test flight with no customer payload aboard).  A delay of a few days beyond NET Jan. 29 won't matter much in the "big picture" (How the Solar System Was Won).  SES-16 would be given priority in a parallel launch campaigns situation.

So IF the satellite has been delivered and is already being processed for launch;

AND IF Zuma launches tonight, as scheduled;

THEN SES-16 might progress directly through its launch campaign as soon as SLC-40 is cleared for another launch, launching before the Falcon Heavy Demo.

There's my deduction chain.  Any flaws?

In light of the above I can see the FH demo flight dropping into February.
In theory with AFTS and no need to fully reconfigure as is the case for a switch to a ULA launcher, they could both launch same day.

Good point re: hardware and the range.

What about SpaceX personnel?  Are there enough trained staff, at this juncture, to execute two simultaneous, but staggered, countdowns at launch complexes several miles apart?

Hasn’t it been said elsewhere this is not something the company would require of its staff. Especially if thought for a demo flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: kdhilliard on 01/07/2018 10:05 PM
In theory with AFTS and no need to fully reconfigure as is the case for a switch to a ULA launcher, they could both launch same day.
AFTS might allow two in one day, but ASDS won't.  Both launches are scheduled for at-sea booster landing, aren't they?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/07/2018 10:19 PM
In theory with AFTS and no need to fully reconfigure as is the case for a switch to a ULA launcher, they could both launch same day.
AFTS might allow two in one day, but ASDS won't.  Both launches are scheduled for at-sea booster landing, aren't they?
Depnds on what booster it ends up with. They'll want the center core of FH back for examination, but if SES/GovSat ends up with a block 3, SpaceX may not want it back and ditch it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/07/2018 11:24 PM
Seeking confirmation re: ASDS.  There is currently one each per coast/range, correct?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jarnis on 01/08/2018 12:57 AM
Seeking confirmation re: ASDS.  There is currently one each per coast/range, correct?

Yes.

Also note that all FH dates are very notional until they have a good static fire in the books. Not a given that it'll all work out on the first try, considering it is a new vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/08/2018 01:07 AM
Seeking confirmation re: ASDS.  There is currently one each per coast/range, correct?
Keep in mind that SpaceX may grow the ASDS fleet to increase its launch rate from Florida. This launch will probably play roulette with FH for a launch slot unless they ditch GS-1's booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 01/08/2018 05:49 AM
AFTS might allow two in one day, but ASDS won't.  Both launches are scheduled for at-sea booster landing, aren't they?
Depnds on what booster it ends up with. They'll want the center core of FH back for examination, but if SES/GovSat ends up with a block 3, SpaceX may not want it back and ditch it.

If they really would like it back, I wonder if they think with the recent good aiming they've seen, if the probability of missing by more than a handful of meters is >50%.
Because if it's not, landing two on one ASDS is sort-of-possible.

(assuming the trajectories match so the ASDS can be in one place)

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/08/2018 08:09 PM
No update thread so will post this here... Govsat may potentially launch before FH according to SpaceX PAO-

https://mobile.twitter.com/AmericaSpace/status/950464308017811457
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 01/08/2018 08:34 PM
No update thread so will post this here... Govsat may potentially launch before FH according to SpaceX PAO-

https://mobile.twitter.com/AmericaSpace/status/950464308017811457

That would not be surprising, since FH still has a lot of test milestones to complete before it can launch and they are tentatively scheduled within 1 day of each other.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/11/2018 08:37 AM
Quote
GovSat-1 telecom sat owned by @SES_Satellites /Lux govt JV GovSat, built by @OrbitalATK, arrives at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for planned Jan 30 @SpaceX Falcon 9 launch.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/951363834576502784
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/11/2018 12:53 PM
Quote
GovSat-1 Arrives at Cape Canaveral for SpaceX Launch
11/01/2018
GovSat’s first satellite GovSat-1 will offer highly secure capabilities for governments and institutions
 
Luxembourg, 11 January 2018 – The GovSat-1 spacecraft has arrived at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. GovSat-1 is the first satellite of GovSat, which is a brand operated by a joint venture between the Government of Luxembourg and the world-leading satellite operator SES. It is scheduled for launch at the end of this month on board a SpaceX flight-proven Falcon 9 rocket.

The multi-mission satellite was built by Orbital ATK and is designed for the exclusive use of governments and institutions. Located at the 21.5 degrees East orbital slot, GovSat-1 will serve Europe, the Middle East and Africa, including substantial maritime coverage over the Mediterranean and Baltic seas, and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

Patrick Biewer, CEO of GovSat, said, “We are committed to our mission of providing secure satellite communication services for governments and institutions. GovSat-1, with its highly flexible payload featuring advanced encryption and anti-jamming capabilities, will further secure the connectivity for our users’ applications. We are incredibly excited about the upcoming launch of this satellite.”

https://www.govsat.lu/news/govsat-1-arrivesat-cape-canaveral-for-spacex-launch (https://www.govsat.lu/news/govsat-1-arrivesat-cape-canaveral-for-spacex-launch)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/11/2018 06:23 PM
Quote
State-owned Antonov, Ukraine's only aircraft manufacturer, has applied to U.S. Department of Transportation for an emergency exemption to operate a single one-way all-cargo charter flight by An-124-100 Ruslan transporting outsized rocket hardware manufactured by Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX).
https://economics.unian.info/2340258-ukraines-antonov-applies-for-us-permit-to-haul-spacexs-cargo.html

The article later states that two fairing halves are the cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 01/11/2018 06:27 PM
And looks like the An-124 is on its way to LAX:

https://www.flightradar24.com/ADB251F/1018f832

That plane already flew from LAX to Titusville today.

edit:  See posts in SpaceX General Discussion starting here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1770329#msg1770329).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: MazenHesham on 01/12/2018 10:16 AM
The mystery is finally solved - B1032 (NROL-76) booster will be launching this satellite.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/01/11/after-zuma-spacex-keeps-pace-in-preps-for-next-falcon-9-launch/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/12/2018 12:44 PM
I thought B1032 was mothballed after NROL-76.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/12/2018 02:52 PM
Quote
GovSat-1 Arrives at Cape Canaveral for SpaceX Launch
11/01/2018
GovSat’s first satellite GovSat-1 will offer highly secure capabilities for governments and institutions
 
Luxembourg, 11 January 2018 – The GovSat-1 spacecraft has arrived at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. GovSat-1 is the first satellite of GovSat, which is a brand operated by a joint venture between the Government of Luxembourg and the world-leading satellite operator SES. It is scheduled for launch at the end of this month on board a SpaceX flight-proven Falcon 9 rocket.

The multi-mission satellite was built by Orbital ATK and is designed for the exclusive use of governments and institutions. Located at the 21.5 degrees East orbital slot, GovSat-1 will serve Europe, the Middle East and Africa, including substantial maritime coverage over the Mediterranean and Baltic seas, and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

Patrick Biewer, CEO of GovSat, said, “We are committed to our mission of providing secure satellite communication services for governments and institutions. GovSat-1, with its highly flexible payload featuring advanced encryption and anti-jamming capabilities, will further secure the connectivity for our users’ applications. We are incredibly excited about the upcoming launch of this satellite.”

https://www.govsat.lu/news/govsat-1-arrivesat-cape-canaveral-for-spacex-launch (https://www.govsat.lu/news/govsat-1-arrivesat-cape-canaveral-for-spacex-launch)
I just wonder why there's a female humanoid robot standing on top of it with her hands on her hips...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jakusb on 01/12/2018 03:53 PM
I thought B1032 was mothballed after NROL-76.

There was no real logic to it, other then it being stored out in the open.
It was one of the first cores to be stored outside. Hence the conclusion then.
Given it had a real easy profile, it should be perfect for re-use and next in line.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/12/2018 04:50 PM
I thought B1032 was mothballed after NROL-76.

I assume you’re talking about the picture of the two cores behind Hangar M from last August?

Those were actually 1029 and 1021. We haven’t seen 1032 since it landed at LZ-1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/12/2018 06:07 PM
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

The reason why I believed B1032 to be mothballed was because in the Falcon 9 Stage Serial Number Log, Ed Kyle listed that the core was mothballed following touchdown.

However, I am aware that it WILL change within this month.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/12/2018 07:46 PM
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

The reason why I believed B1032 to be mothballed was because in the Falcon 9 Stage Serial Number Log, Ed Kyle listed that the core was mothballed following touchdown.

However, I am aware that it WILL change within this month.
No. It is because the Core was stored outside instead of in a hanger like normal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/12/2018 08:01 PM
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

The reason why I believed B1032 to be mothballed was because in the Falcon 9 Stage Serial Number Log, Ed Kyle listed that the core was mothballed following touchdown.

However, I am aware that it WILL change within this month.
No. It is because the Core was stored outside instead of in a hanger like normal.

Where was it stored?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/12/2018 08:21 PM
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

The reason why I believed B1032 to be mothballed was because in the Falcon 9 Stage Serial Number Log, Ed Kyle listed that the core was mothballed following touchdown.

However, I am aware that it WILL change within this month.
No. It is because the Core was stored outside instead of in a hanger like normal.

Where was it stored?
Mainly at Hanger AM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 01/21/2018 10:34 PM
Moved posts talking about the effects of the government shutdown to:
The impact of a government shutdown on KSC testing (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44698.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Inoeth on 01/25/2018 02:50 AM
So I may have missed it, but has it been declared one way or the other if this mission will utilize OCISLY or will they dispose of the old Block 3 stage? Given the desire to launch FH in the next week to week and a half, that doesn't leave much of any room to land, return to port and then go out again for the drone ship in the amount of time that SpaceX is talking about for FH, and makes me think they'll get rid of the old stage...

It also makes me wonder if at some point they'll buy/rent another drone ship for the East Coast given the many launches from those two pads that may otherwise necessitate throwing away even Block V cores if the schedule demands it...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 01/25/2018 03:10 AM
I haven't seen it announced.

They only have about a dozen east coast flights this year that would need the drone ship.  If the future internet constellation launches can RTLS there really won't be a reason for two drone ships at the Cape.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Danrar on 01/25/2018 06:35 AM
So I may have missed it, but has it been declared one way or the other if this mission will utilize OCISLY or will they dispose of the old Block 3 stage? Given the desire to launch FH in the next week to week and a half, that doesn't leave much of any room to land, return to port and then go out again for the drone ship in the amount of time that SpaceX is talking about for FH, and makes me think they'll get rid of the old stage...

It also makes me wonder if at some point they'll buy/rent another drone ship for the East Coast given the many launches from those two pads that may otherwise necessitate throwing away even Block V cores if the schedule demands it...
Since this will be the second flight for this core I imagine they'll be expending it. From a testing standpoint that center core from FH will be extremely valuable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 01/25/2018 06:37 AM
Since this will be the second flight for this core I imagine they'll be expending it. From a testing standpoint that center core from FH will be extremely valuable.
Plus, there is one (?) centre core at the moment, and many used boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Elthiryel on 01/25/2018 02:04 PM
From the updates thread:
M1389 GovSat-1 Launch Hazard Areas (https://goo.gl/L9HXtj) visualization based on issued NOTMAR.

I couldn't find the issued NOTMAR, but I am not sure where I should look for it, actually. What launch date does the NOTMAR show? Is it still Jan 30th? AFAIR, previously SpaceX required at least 4 days between a static fire and a launch, so they should conduct a static fire NLT tomorrow if they still want to launch on Jan 30th.

EDIT:
I managed to find the NOTMAR here (PDF attached): https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=lnmDistrict&region=7
Quote
Primary launch day: 30 / 2118Z thru 31 / 0037Z Jan 18. Preferred T-0 is 2123Z.
Backup launch day: 31 / 2118Z thru 01 / 0037Z Feb 18. Preferred T-0 is 2123Z.

So the planned launch date seems to be unchanged, at least for now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: BunkerTheHusky on 01/25/2018 07:00 PM
Will be interesting to see if they still soft land this one like they did for Iridium-4. (Did they? I remember hearing something about it)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: tvg98 on 01/25/2018 07:57 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWa-oRt3DIE&t=0s&ab_channel=USLaunchReport (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWa-oRt3DIE&t=0s&ab_channel=USLaunchReport)

Roll-out's happening soon it seems.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/26/2018 04:33 PM
And static fire complete...

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/956941584259411968

Interesting to compare how quick and easy this F9 static fire campaign was compared to that of FH - just roll it out and fire it up the same day on the first try. I’m sure lots of folks hope flow for FH/LC-39A gets as smooth with time - or at least, smoother than it was the first time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/26/2018 04:39 PM
hoping we get a pic of both FH and Govsat vertical at the same time
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vanoord on 01/26/2018 04:41 PM
And static fire complete...

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/956941584259411968

Interesting to compare how quick and easy this F9 static fire campaign was compared to that of FH - just roll it out and fire it up the same day on the first try. I’m sure lots of folks hope flow for FH/LC-39A gets as smooth with time - or at least, smoother than it was the first time.

Nice to see it done without fuss.

For all the excitement Falcon Heavy brings, SpaceX need a good run of issue-free launches for F9 and to get to a point where they're flying a common fleet of boosters (Block 5) and getting ever closer to launching humans.

Dispelling the (likely unfounded) doubt that has arisen since Zuma is going to be best achieved by going about their business, putting satellites into orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/26/2018 05:28 PM
And static fire complete...

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/956941584259411968

Interesting to compare how quick and easy this F9 static fire campaign was compared to that of FH - just roll it out and fire it up the same day on the first try. I’m sure lots of folks hope flow for FH/LC-39A gets as smooth with time - or at least, smoother than it was the first time.

Well... it was rolled out yesterday afternoon.  Which is standard timeline for rollout to engine firing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: tvg98 on 01/26/2018 06:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Xv2uO6Grg&ab_channel=USLaunchReport


Seems like it was around 7-8 seconds in duration. Very nice!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Nehkara on 01/26/2018 06:47 PM
I made a gfycat of this static fire.

https://gfycat.com/LongCheerfulFirebelliedtoad

Credit: US Launch Report

The Static Fire was 9.1 seconds long, +/- a tenth of a second.

That's really long for a static fire, isn't it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: tvg98 on 01/26/2018 06:52 PM
I made a gfycat of this static fire.

https://gfycat.com/LongCheerfulFirebelliedtoad

Credit: US Launch Report

The Static Fire was 9.1 seconds long, +/- a tenth of a second.

That's really long for a static fire, isn't it?

Now possible because of the upgrades that were made to SLC-40.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Nehkara on 01/26/2018 06:53 PM
I made a gfycat of this static fire.

https://gfycat.com/LongCheerfulFirebelliedtoad

Credit: US Launch Report

The Static Fire was 9.1 seconds long, +/- a tenth of a second.

That's really long for a static fire, isn't it?

Now possible because of the upgrades that were made to SLC-40.  :)

Awesome!

What are the benefits to SpaceX of doing a longer firing?  More data?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/26/2018 07:46 PM
Interesting to compare how quick and easy this F9 static fire campaign was compared to that of FH - just roll it out and fire it up the same day on the first try. I’m sure lots of folks hope flow for FH/LC-39A gets as smooth with time - or at least, smoother than it was the first time.
I don't know why anyone would expect the first FH static fire campaign to be anything but slow and deliberate.  There's no reason to think it is in any way indicative of how long future FH static fires will take.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/26/2018 07:48 PM
For all the excitement Falcon Heavy brings, SpaceX need a good run of issue-free launches for F9
They've had 19 in a row.  Obviously they need to keep it up, but that's a nice run of issue-free launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Maestro19 on 01/26/2018 08:05 PM
Quote from: Chris G static fire article
While SES-16’s weight compared to other SES satellites would likely allow SpaceX to recover the booster on the Of Course I Still Love You drone ship, SpaceX will likely use the expendable nature of this booster to test landing and atmospheric entry techniques while ditching the booster in the Atlantic in an effort to clear out the Block 3 Falcon 9 stock in favor of the currently operational Block 4s and soon-to-be-operational Block 5s.

Did anyone else get that cognitive dissonance where the thoughts "of course boosters end up in the ocean" and "hey, stop littering!" start competing for headspace?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Eerie on 01/26/2018 08:21 PM
Quote from: Chris G static fire article
While SES-16’s weight compared to other SES satellites would likely allow SpaceX to recover the booster on the Of Course I Still Love You drone ship, SpaceX will likely use the expendable nature of this booster to test landing and atmospheric entry techniques while ditching the booster in the Atlantic in an effort to clear out the Block 3 Falcon 9 stock in favor of the currently operational Block 4s and soon-to-be-operational Block 5s.

Did anyone else get that cognitive dissonance where the thoughts "of course boosters end up in the ocean" and "hey, stop littering!" start competing for headspace?

The amount of rocket boosters falling into the ocean is insignificant compared to all the other garbage we throw there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/26/2018 08:25 PM
Quote from: Chris G static fire article
While SES-16’s weight compared to other SES satellites would likely allow SpaceX to recover the booster on the Of Course I Still Love You drone ship, SpaceX will likely use the expendable nature of this booster to test landing and atmospheric entry techniques while ditching the booster in the Atlantic in an effort to clear out the Block 3 Falcon 9 stock in favor of the currently operational Block 4s and soon-to-be-operational Block 5s.

Did anyone else get that cognitive dissonance where the thoughts "of course boosters end up in the ocean" and "hey, stop littering!" start competing for headspace?

no, because it is insignificant
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: alang on 01/26/2018 09:15 PM
Quote from: Chris G static fire article
While SES-16’s weight compared to other SES satellites would likely allow SpaceX to recover the booster on the Of Course I Still Love You drone ship, SpaceX will likely use the expendable nature of this booster to test landing and atmospheric entry techniques while ditching the booster in the Atlantic in an effort to clear out the Block 3 Falcon 9 stock in favor of the currently operational Block 4s and soon-to-be-operational Block 5s.

Did anyone else get that cognitive dissonance where the thoughts "of course boosters end up in the ocean" and "hey, stop littering!" start competing for headspace?

no, because it is insignificant

If I throw a coke can in then that's insignificant as well but I expect to be judged harshly for it.
In the case of aerospace, whether insignificant or not, there is a leadership aspect to throwing things in the ocean that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
You shouldn't expect non engineers to have reached your level of enlightenment and that can be a good thing as well as a bad thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/26/2018 09:18 PM
Seems like if there is an ecological discussion regarding the disposal of spent rocket bodies it should probably be in a dedicated thread somewhere else, not in the GovSat-1 thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/27/2018 12:18 AM
Interesting to compare how quick and easy this F9 static fire campaign was compared to that of FH - just roll it out and fire it up the same day on the first try. I’m sure lots of folks hope flow for FH/LC-39A gets as smooth with time - or at least, smoother than it was the first time.
I don't know why anyone would expect the first FH static fire campaign to be anything but slow and deliberate.  There's no reason to think it is in any way indicative of how long future FH static fires will take.

You're missing my point, which was quite the reverse; that is to say, operations with a relatively-mature system (F9 1.2) is already silky-smooth, even on a very recently rebuilt launch pad. They have that flow down cold, by all indications.

But the converse is also true - the first subcooled-LOX flows had their delays and issues too. That's where FH is by comparison. Seeing the two flows so close togeher on the calendar underscores the difference in maturity of the systems. That's all.

But the point remains - F9 even off a rebuilt launch pad is as close to "routine" as rocketry can get, I think.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Comga on 01/27/2018 12:25 AM
People are intentionally missing Maesro19’s point.
It’s not about littering the ocean.
It’s about recovery of first stages.
At least around here, we now expect it.
We don’t even bet where it will land on the barge or pad.
It’s a shift.
Maybe some think that SpaceX will give it up, or dissapear, but many like me expect the majority of big commercial launch first stages to recovered from here on out.
YMMV
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Orbiter on 01/27/2018 04:32 PM
B1032 appears to be sooty on this flight, per pictures posted on the update thread, if anyone was interested.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/27/2018 10:10 PM
Per ken kremers photos released of the booster vertical on the pad, this booster has the soot like CRS 13, should be fun seeing where the landing legs were. (Pics in FH update thread)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/28/2018 07:14 AM
Quote from: Chris G static fire article
While SES-16’s weight compared to other SES satellites would likely allow SpaceX to recover the booster on the Of Course I Still Love You drone ship, SpaceX will likely use the expendable nature of this booster to test landing and atmospheric entry techniques while ditching the booster in the Atlantic in an effort to clear out the Block 3 Falcon 9 stock in favor of the currently operational Block 4s and soon-to-be-operational Block 5s.

Did anyone else get that cognitive dissonance where the thoughts "of course boosters end up in the ocean" and "hey, stop littering!" start competing for headspace?

no, because it is insignificant

If I throw a coke can in then that's insignificant as well but I expect to be judged harshly for it.
In the case of aerospace, whether insignificant or not, there is a leadership aspect to throwing things in the ocean that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
You shouldn't expect non engineers to have reached your level of enlightenment and that can be a good thing as well as a bad thing.
Ironically (considering my background) tossing spent boosters in the ocean may not be a terrible thing for the marine environment. I’ve been involved with some studies of man-made (deliberately or not) fish aggregation devices (FAD), and the large, partially destroyed, cylinder of a booster resting on the bottom could work nicely as a FAD. Provided it’s not leaching caustic substances of course.

Now, tossing away a booster instead of reusing it has become reprehensible to me - which I love because it indicates there’s now an alternative...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/28/2018 08:02 PM
Since the first stage is being expended, and considering that SES-16/GovSat 1 is 4,000 kilograms, is it possible for the second stage to inject the payload into a supersynchronous transfer orbit?

If yes, then I'm assuming the apogee would range from 55,000 to 60,000 kilometers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Elthiryel on 01/28/2018 09:47 PM
Yes, this is definitely possible and I expect an orbit of GovSat-1 to be supersynchronous. They have done it before, even when the first stage landed (or tried to land, at least). Such data for previous SpaceX GTO missions can be found within /r/spacex wiki/FAQ:
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/launches/gto_performance
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/29/2018 09:52 AM
Given the range weather reports, I'm just waiting for the official confirmation of a slip to Wednesday.

That aside, with regard to the recovery ships heading out, seemingly for the SES-16 launch: Are they also used as post-launch tracking assets?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 01/29/2018 01:22 PM
Given the range weather reports, I'm just waiting for the official confirmation of a slip to Wednesday.

That aside, with regard to the recovery ships heading out, seemingly for the SES-16 launch: Are they also used as post-launch tracking assets?
The last expendable launch also had a full recovery flotilla.  My theory would be that since the booster hardware won't be recovered they make an effort to downlink more of the normally-stored-not-transmitted telemetry during descent, and a support ship over the horizon from the launch pad helps with this.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/29/2018 03:47 PM
Is the Falcon 9 vertical on the pad with the payload? I haven't seen an update.

Edit: Got my days mixed up, launch isn't until tomorrow. Plenty of time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/29/2018 07:15 PM
Given the range weather reports, I'm just waiting for the official confirmation of a slip to Wednesday.


The weather reports that says there's a 40% chance of acceptable weather conditions -- with only one area of concern, ground winds -- throughout a more than 2hr long launch window?  What, based on a 40% go forecast and a 2+hr launch window, is causing you to be "waiting for the official confirmation of a slip to Wednesday"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/29/2018 07:25 PM
Given the range weather reports, I'm just waiting for the official confirmation of a slip to Wednesday.


The weather reports that says there's a 40% chance of acceptable weather conditions -- with only one area of concern, ground winds -- throughout a more than 2hr long launch window?  What, based on a 40% go forecast and a 2+hr launch window, is causing you to be "waiting for the official confirmation of a slip to Wednesday"?

Honestly, why wouldn't SpaceX give it a try. I think the only reason they wouldn't is if the range says no or if there's multiple factors at play (rain, ground winds, upper winds, etc).

Worst that could happen is pushing the launch back a day.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/29/2018 07:26 PM
What about upper level winds? They are high both Tuesday and Wednesday, so not sure the 2 hour launch window helps much with those. Or is 110 kts doable?! IIRC Zuma had a delay - not a scrub - for upper level winds.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/29/2018 07:31 PM
I doubt that 110 knots is doable because it's above the upper level wind limits.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/29/2018 07:40 PM
What about upper level winds? They are high both Tuesday and Wednesday, so not sure the 2 hour launch window helps much with those. Or is 110 kts doable?! IIRC Zuma had a delay - not a scrub - for upper level winds.

Zuma was delayed when ULWs were predicted to 150 kts.

EDIT: Where on here was the discuss and analysis of ULWs for F9?  I swear I saw those when Zuma was delayed, but I can't find them now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cppetrie on 01/29/2018 07:57 PM
What about upper level winds? They are high both Tuesday and Wednesday, so not sure the 2 hour launch window helps much with those. Or is 110 kts doable?! IIRC Zuma had a delay - not a scrub - for upper level winds.

Zuma was delayed when ULWs were predicted to 150 kts.

EDIT: Where on here was the discuss and analysis of ULWs for F9?  I swear I saw those when Zuma was delayed, but I can't find them now.
I think it was in the Zuma discussion thread and now likely lost in what that thread became after the launch. My recollection is that shear was just as, if not more, important than absolute velocity. Also, the discussion revealed that ULW are not a weather commit criteria as far as the range is concerned. They report the values to SpaceX, which has internal parameters for launching or not. As such, we do not have public (or L2 as far as I’ve seen) info on what the ULW constraints (velocity or shear) actually are. We can only infer based on what they have previously launched in. And that info I do not have but others might.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/29/2018 08:11 PM
What about upper level winds? They are high both Tuesday and Wednesday, so not sure the 2 hour launch window helps much with those. Or is 110 kts doable?! IIRC Zuma had a delay - not a scrub - for upper level winds.

Zuma was delayed when ULWs were predicted to 150 kts.
W
EDIT: Where on here was the discuss and analysis of ULWs for F9?  I swear I saw those when Zuma was delayed, but I can't find them now.

Thanks for that Chris. I’d misremembered the ULWs as 120 kts, not 150.

Not sure precisely what discussion you’re referring to. You did have a twitter discussion with CRS-13, which was captured at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1757982#msg1757982 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1757982#msg1757982)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/29/2018 08:54 PM
What about upper level winds? They are high both Tuesday and Wednesday, so not sure the 2 hour launch window helps much with those. Or is 110 kts doable?! IIRC Zuma had a delay - not a scrub - for upper level winds.

Zuma was delayed when ULWs were predicted to 150 kts.
W
EDIT: Where on here was the discuss and analysis of ULWs for F9?  I swear I saw those when Zuma was delayed, but I can't find them now.

Thanks for that Chris. I’d misremembered the ULWs as 120 kts, not 150.

Not sure precisely what discussion you’re referring to. You did have a twitter discussion with CRS-13, which was captured at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1757982#msg1757982 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1757982#msg1757982)

Yeah, I remember -- and maybe it's in the CRS-13 threads, not the Zuma threads.  Good catch -- that there was an in-depth discussion here about previous F9 ULW scrubs and what we thought the limits where.  I'll go look through the CRS-13 threads.  Thanks!

EDIT:  And that's where they are!  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1758033#msg1758033

SES-9 scrubbed for ULWs at 136 kts out of the west at 32,800 ft.  So if Zuma was 95 kts out of the west and went just fine, and there's no informal talk from what I'm hearing currently that ULWs of 110 kts out of the west are an issue for SES-16, maybe that gives us us some sense of the limit being greater than 110 kts but less than 136 kts? 

Of course, this could all change tomorrow.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/29/2018 09:23 PM
Presskit is up (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/govsat1presskit.pdf)

It bothers me more than it should that the patch shows a booster with legs and grid fins ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: stcks on 01/29/2018 09:29 PM
Presskit is up (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/govsat1presskit.pdf)

It bothers me more than it should that the patch shows a booster with legs and grid fins ;D

The MECO time indicates that the grid fins will likely be used, but yeah those legs are bothering me too  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/29/2018 09:30 PM
Presskit is up (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/govsat1presskit.pdf)

It bothers me more than it should that the patch shows a booster with legs and grid fins ;D

:)  So presumably the patch was designed before agreement to use a flight proven booster?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/29/2018 10:01 PM
Who knows? Maybe they actually will use the legs as extra testing, and that the patch was not a mistake.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/29/2018 10:07 PM
Who knows? Maybe they actually will use the legs as extra testing, and that the patch was not a mistake.

And throw out the old Block 3 legs before Block 5 comes out with the new legs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: macpacheco on 01/30/2018 01:04 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if Elon sends his jet up an hour before launch to find out if there's an actual wind shear rather than look just at the high level wind speeds.
The problem isn't the intensity of winds, but how fast they jump.
If there's no big jump, but rather a more smooth increase, then its ok.
Maybe the weather baloon is just as good, measuring maximum acceleration on the way up. Very different from simply looking at the winds.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 01/30/2018 03:03 AM
The issue in question and concern per the AF report is LIFTOFF winds...

Gusting to 30mph out of the North...  :-\

Rockets right after liftoff, tend to drift downwind till they get some speed going and can steer...

There was only light shear forecasted looking at other weather sources... a non issue IMHO...  ;)

 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 01/30/2018 03:51 AM
Here are the forecasted winds from the Ventusky app. Set for the Cape but note the time is Pacific Time. Wind speeds are in knots with altitudes are in the upper right corner. I removed the wind direction from the 9000m shot so the speeds can be seen the wind direction is due east.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/30/2018 09:47 AM
The issue in question and concern per the AF report is LIFTOFF winds...

Gusting to 30mph out of the North...  :-\

Rockets right after liftoff, tend to drift downwind till they get some speed going and can steer...

There was only light shear forecasted looking at other weather sources... a non issue IMHO...  ;)

 

That's not what we're discussing.  As the discussion has stated, there is an upper level wind component that is NOT accounted for in the official AF weather prediction.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/30/2018 01:28 PM
Any word if Falcon is vertical yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/30/2018 02:10 PM
Well, it has legs and fins.

The patch did not lie  :)

Also, interesting fairing design. Doesn't even mention SES.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 01/30/2018 02:21 PM
Why does it have legs?!

Ob. Crazy Theory: test of block 5 leg design, perhaps including early deploy as drag brakes? (That would be the part they'd be interested in testing, presumably; it would be odd to need to test actuation otherwise and they can't test landing loads or post-landing stability when doing a water landing.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/30/2018 02:22 PM
Why does it have legs?!

Ob. Crazy Theory: test of block 5 leg design, perhaps including early deploy as drag brakes? (That would be the part they'd be interested in testing, presumably; it would be odd to need to test actuation otherwise and they can't test landing loads or post-landing stability when doing a water landing.)

Why not keep testing landing legs, and get rid of the old Block 3 legs in a peaceful manner.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/30/2018 02:23 PM
We've got ourselves another sooty McSooterson. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 01/30/2018 02:27 PM
Why does it have legs?!

Ob. Crazy Theory: test of block 5 leg design, perhaps including early deploy as drag brakes? (That would be the part they'd be interested in testing, presumably; it would be odd to need to test actuation otherwise and they can't test landing loads or post-landing stability when doing a water landing.)

Why not keep testing landing legs, and get rid of the old Block 3 legs in a peaceful manner.
But what is there left to test?

I mean, obviously if the legs are installed they are there for some test or other, since they won't be useful for actually landing the stage.

The question is: what are they testing?

And if they are reused block 3 legs, what data could they get that would still be applicable to the new block 5 design?

(This is an honest question, not an implication that there is no such data or worthwhile test program.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/30/2018 02:27 PM
Why does it have legs?!

Ob. Crazy Theory: test of block 5 leg design, perhaps including early deploy as drag brakes? (That would be the part they'd be interested in testing, presumably; it would be odd to need to test actuation otherwise and they can't test landing loads or post-landing stability when doing a water landing.)

Why not keep testing landing legs, and get rid of the old Block 3 legs in a peaceful manner.
- Installing legs takes time and resources = $$$
- Legs add mass that takes away from performance
- Legs are a point of failure, no matter how small
- Non-Block 5 legs are pretty well understood by now.
- Rumor has it the Block 5 legs are quite different and immediately noticeable.

This one is odd...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 01/30/2018 02:32 PM


Is the reentry phase different with/without legs attached?

The previous expendable flight (from Vandenberg) had grid fins but not legs.  That seemed to imply that grid fins are a core part of the reentry program (or at least the test program), but not legs.

But maybe the previous flight displayed some variance which the engineers traced to the lack of legs, so now they are going to repeat the test in full fidelity flight configuration?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: eeergo on 01/30/2018 02:32 PM
Also somewhat interestingly, the racetrack and its associated interstage fairing is left unpainted (or changed to a new material?) black.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/30/2018 02:35 PM
We've got ourselves another sooty McSooterson. ;)
You think they would have gave her a wash out of respect for the "royals" being present... So unseemly... ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: MechE31 on 01/30/2018 02:38 PM
My guess on the legs is that they planned to recover this one, but given how the dates worked out, they  prioritized recovering FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 01/30/2018 02:45 PM
My guess on the legs is that they planned to recover this one, but given how the dates worked out, they  prioritized recovering FH.
Removing the legs is less than a day's work, though: we see them do it every time they recover a stage. Why throw the $$$ away?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: MechE31 on 01/30/2018 02:51 PM
My guess on the legs is that they planned to recover this one, but given how the dates worked out, they  prioritized recovering FH.
Removing the legs is less than a day's work, though: we see them do it every time they recover a stage. Why throw the $$$ away?

The decision was probably made before a FH launch date was firm and by the time the date was set, the legs were already on the vehicle.

How do you deal with the fittings, attach points and other penetrations through the tank that are now exposed? It's probably cheaper, easier and less risky to fly the known configuration than to try and scramble to reconfigure the rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: First Mate Rummey on 01/30/2018 02:55 PM
My guess on the legs is that they planned to recover this one, but given how the dates worked out, they  prioritized recovering FH.

If this is true, then they would give very few value to the recovered core. They could just have postponed FH, and I wouldn't be surprised if it will get postponed anyway as happened to the static fire.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/30/2018 02:59 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.


My guess on the legs is that they planned to recover this one, but given how the dates worked out, they  prioritized recovering FH.
Removing the legs is less than a day's work, though: we see them do it every time they recover a stage. Why throw the $$$ away?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Prettz on 01/30/2018 03:17 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/30/2018 03:20 PM
I'm sure that the legs alter the stage's performance, up and down. Maybe they want tracking data that is applicable to flights leading to the recovery of the booster?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 01/30/2018 03:25 PM
Also, interesting fairing design. Doesn't even mention SES.

The satellite is owned by a joint venture of SES and the government of Luxembourg.  When they first ordered it they were calling it SES-16/GovSat, but later the branding seems to have changed to just GovSat-1, even on the SES web site.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 01/30/2018 03:30 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?
Hi, I'm here from China Aero Space Technology corp[1] and I want to bid on those scrap legs...

1 - made up name.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/30/2018 03:53 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: MechE31 on 01/30/2018 03:55 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

Cured carbon fiber has very limited uses and a very low scrap value.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 01/30/2018 03:55 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

That probably adds up to a very hot reentry and three engine landing burn -- stretching the envelope for down range landings after high energy payload deliveries.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/30/2018 03:57 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

They did a launch on the west coast with fins and no legs. I wonder if it showed enough variance in behavior (likely on the way down) that they decided they get better data with the legs. It may also be true that they already have plenty of block 3/4 legs and so they lose very little by dumping them in the water, any any gain in data quality is worth it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Surfdaddy on 01/30/2018 04:06 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

They did a launch on the west coast with fins and no legs. I wonder if it showed enough variance in behavior (likely on the way down) that they decided they get better data with the legs. It may also be true that they already have plenty of block 3/4 legs and so they lose very little by dumping them in the water, any any gain in data quality is worth it.

One thing they are clearly very good at is maximizing the value of all assets. They get information, push envelope, etc. on nearly all flights. They are undoubtedly maximizing their data return even with this expendable launch and reentry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: JonathanD on 01/30/2018 04:11 PM
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

It is notable that they have not done this on other expendable launches.  It would be interesting to know why they chose this one and if there is something in particular they are looking for.  It's not like they have a shortage of data from booster landings.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Elthiryel on 01/30/2018 04:17 PM
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

It is notable that they have not done this on other expendable launches.  It would be interesting to know why they chose this one and if there is something in particular they are looking for.  It's not like they have a shortage of data from booster landings.

The other expendable launches were expendable because the satellite was too heavy, so the booster would not have enough fuel to land after stage separation anyway. Since the booster landings became more or less routine, the only exception to date has been the last Iridium flight, when the booster was equipped with grid fins, but not with legs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Stefan.Christoff.19 on 01/30/2018 04:20 PM
Maybe they want to find out exactly how much performance is left if they fly in the normal re-use configuration.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/30/2018 04:22 PM
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

It is notable that they have not done this on other expendable launches.  It would be interesting to know why they chose this one and if there is something in particular they are looking for.  It's not like they have a shortage of data from booster landings.


Two flights ago, Iridium NEXT-4 was expended in just this manner (minus the landing legs) with a soft landing in the ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/30/2018 04:28 PM
Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

They did a launch on the west coast with fins and no legs. I wonder if it showed enough variance in behavior (likely on the way down) that they decided they get better data with the legs. It may also be true that they already have plenty of block 3/4 legs and so they lose very little by dumping them in the water, any any gain in data quality is worth it.
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down, would the F9 be bottom heavy enough to be stable in the water or at least tip over slowly enough so as to not RUD? Add an interstage towing adapter and haul'er back into be scrapped. [party thread] Bonus points if Elon rides the rocket back into port wearing a pirate costume or Captain's uniform [/party thread]
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: JonathanD on 01/30/2018 04:39 PM
It may also be true that they already have plenty of block 3/4 legs and so they lose very little by dumping them in the water

How funny is it that only now this seems wasteful because we have become so accustomed to SpaceX reusing boosters and agonizing over things like fairing recovery, when throughout the history of rocketry dumping crap in the ocean was totally normal (and still is, unless you're Chinese, in which case flaming hunks of rocket fall in your garden).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RDoc on 01/30/2018 06:03 PM
It may also be true that they already have plenty of block 3/4 legs and so they lose very little by dumping them in the water

How funny is it that only now this seems wasteful because we have become so accustomed to SpaceX reusing boosters and agonizing over things like fairing recovery, when throughout the history of rocketry dumping crap in the ocean was totally normal (and still is, unless you're Chinese, in which case flaming hunks of rocket fall in your garden).
Actually if you live in parts of Russia, they and their fuel fall into the forests and fields around you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2018 06:12 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down,s uniform [/party thread]

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2018 06:14 PM

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

So, that is why the boats are going out.  To receive telemetry vs fairing recovery
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/30/2018 06:38 PM

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

So, that is why the boats are going out.  To receive telemetry vs fairing recovery
Observe/record visual landing behavior?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/30/2018 06:39 PM

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

So, that is why the boats are going out.  To receive telemetry vs fairing recovery
I believe ChrisG was responding to the 'but it has legs, why?' comments.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2018 06:59 PM

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

So, that is why the boats are going out.  To receive telemetry vs fairing recovery
Observe/record visual landing behavior?

not visual.  If they are doing #4, then to gather data they need a receiver near by since the Cape would be below the visual horizon to receive the telemetry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/30/2018 07:05 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down...

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Makes sense on a normal rocket to have as much margin as possible, but do you know for sure if this applies to the F9? The second stage can obviously dump it's excess fuel after the deorbit burn, but the first stage brings it home - seems like a bad idea if things go pear shaped.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 01/30/2018 07:07 PM

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

So, that is why the boats are going out.  To receive telemetry vs fairing recovery
Observe/record visual landing behavior?

not visual.  If they are doing #4, then to gather data they need a receiver near by since the Cape would be below the visual horizon to receive the telemetry.

We've seen boats come back with fairing parts, so they probably are doing both.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: lrk on 01/30/2018 07:08 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down...

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Makes sense on a normal rocket to have as much margin as possible, but do you know for sure if this applies to the F9? The second stage can obviously dump it's excess fuel after the deorbit burn, but the first stage brings it home - seems like a bad idea if things go pear shaped.

F9 S1 can always use any extra fuel for a less-efficient but more gentle entry and landing. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: starsilk on 01/30/2018 07:11 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down...

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Makes sense on a normal rocket to have as much margin as possible, but do you know for sure if this applies to the F9? The second stage can obviously dump it's excess fuel after the deorbit burn, but the first stage brings it home - seems like a bad idea if things go pear shaped.

first stage always burns to depletion (leave enough for landing only). that gives the second stage the most margin possible in case it needs it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/30/2018 07:11 PM
Scrub for the day due to winds, next try tomorrow.  :P  :-\
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Prettz on 01/30/2018 07:14 PM
Hi, I'm here from China Aero Space Technology corp[1] and I want to bid on those scrap legs...

1 - made up name.
Cured carbon fiber has very limited uses and a very low scrap value.
Obviously not selling the whole legs, that would be full of IP. The legs have a quite a bit of metal on them, though (the pneumatics, for instance) that would fetch an amount more than 0.

If it wouldn't get enough to make up for the cost of tearing apart the legs, that would be a very good reason not to bother scrapping them.

But we know why they're leaving them on now, and the test data is certainly worth more than the scrap value.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/30/2018 07:15 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down...

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Makes sense on a normal rocket to have as much margin as possible, but do you know for sure if this applies to the F9? The second stage can obviously dump it's excess fuel after the deorbit burn, but the first stage brings it home - seems like a bad idea if things go pear shaped.

F9 S1 can always use any extra fuel for a less-efficient but more gentle entry and landing.
The mission I'm specifically thinking of was formosat - the payload was tiny and it landed on the drone ship downrange. I'll go back and re-watch that mission, but I don't recall any sort of excessively long post sep burns.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2018 07:18 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down...

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Makes sense on a normal rocket to have as much margin as possible, but do you know for sure if this applies to the F9? The second stage can obviously dump it's excess fuel after the deorbit burn, but the first stage brings it home - seems like a bad idea if things go pear shaped.

first stage always burns to depletion (leave enough for landing only). that gives the second stage the most margin possible in case it needs it.


If first stages were to be partially loaded, then many different load cases come into effect, like liftoff lighter load.  And then there is slosh at a different point in the flight.
A lot more analysis would need to be done to cover all the new cases.  And some might have design impacts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 01/30/2018 07:19 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down...

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Makes sense on a normal rocket to have as much margin as possible, but do you know for sure if this applies to the F9? The second stage can obviously dump it's excess fuel after the deorbit burn, but the first stage brings it home - seems like a bad idea if things go pear shaped.

F9 S1 can always use any extra fuel for a less-efficient but more gentle entry and landing.
The mission I'm specifically thinking of was formosat - the payload was tiny and it landed on the drone ship downrange. I'll go back and re-watch that mission, but I don't recall any sort of excessively long post sep burns.


They also need to keep extra margin on board in case of an engine out.  There are a number of engine failure scenarios that could still make orbit but would require the entire fuel margins leaving nothing left for return.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Bubbinski on 01/30/2018 07:21 PM
Seeing some chatter elsewhere (Spaceflight Now, Twitter) about the scrub. Besides winds, the team apparently is replacing a sensor on the 2nd stage, rocket will go horizontal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Boost on 01/30/2018 07:23 PM
Probably both the sensor and the high altitude winds. What is the forecast about those winds for tomorrow ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/30/2018 07:24 PM
I believe it is 90℅ GO.

Probably both the sensor and the high altitude winds. What is the forecast about those winds for tomorrow ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Boost on 01/30/2018 07:25 PM
But these 90% exclude the high altitude winds isn't it ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 01/30/2018 07:28 PM
Oh... Forgot about that, yeah they exclude them, that GO is everything else weather related.

But these 90% exclude the high altitude winds isn't it ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Elthiryel on 01/30/2018 07:31 PM
Upper level winds tomorrow are forecasted to be at 100 knots (110 today).

But it seems that today they were monitoring ground winds, according to James Dean, and this was the main issue and the reason behind the first delay (before the sensor failure was discovered, obviously). Tomorrow thick cloud layers are predicted to be the biggest concern.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/30/2018 07:33 PM
But these 90% exclude the high altitude winds isn't it ?

Correct.  Winds aloft is not part of weather constraints.  The vehicle contractor makes that call.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/31/2018 12:53 AM
Here's hoping they post high res versions of those F9 FH shots. That's an incredible milestone to see.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mlindner on 01/31/2018 02:11 AM
FEATURE ARTICLE: SpaceX set to loft GovSat-1 via Falcon 9 launch -
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-govsat-1-falcon-9-launch/

- By William Graham

And yes, that's Zuma's F9 in the lead photo for now as we're waiting for pad photos. Will replace when we have new ones. Media pad photos delayed due to the late arrival of the Luxembourg royal family.

(Pfft, that always happens. ) ;D

>  As with December’s Iridium-NEXT launch, SpaceX will dispose of the older Block 3 booster by flying it in an expendable configuration without landing legs.

It has lending legs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jet Black on 01/31/2018 08:11 AM

That probably adds up to a very hot reentry and three engine landing burn -- stretching the envelope for down range landings after high energy payload deliveries.

or other corner cases to test stresses on the vehicle, for example intentionally bringing it in at shallower angles to improve range and so on. Although  they are pretty good at landing rockets now, there is always new stuff to learn.

If they aren't going to use that rocket again, then information and data are more valuable than the remains of the vehicle sitting at the bottom of the sea.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ATPTourFan on 01/31/2018 11:25 AM
SpaceX has been working on using more of the atmosphere to slow down Falcon 9 as that saves propellant and will be important for BFR.

Wouldn’t be surprised if they use these opportunities to test aggressive entries where a loss of booster on the way down wouldn’t be a problem.

Either way, SpaceX knows what they are doing and I trust they had many smart people develop the flight plan for this secondary phase of today’s mission. We need not worry if the truth isn’t immediately obvious.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: marsbase on 01/31/2018 12:44 PM
We need not worry if the truth isn’t immediately obvious.
I would say that is pretty much the mantra of science (and good technology).  Religion and politics require immediate truth.  Science can afford to be patient.  8)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: hkultala on 01/31/2018 01:04 PM
SpaceX has been working on using more of the atmosphere to slow down Falcon 9 as that saves propellant and will be important for BFR.

F9 1st stage is having quite big angle of attack when it's flying back towards landing location. Quite much of body lift can be gotten even from a cylinder shape, when it's light enough.

And the higher angle of attack saves fuel used to both flying back AND slowing down to landing velocity
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2018 01:06 PM
INTERESTING!

SpaceX recovery support ships Go Quest and Go Searcher have left Port Canaveral.

Possible fairing recovery test!

No, more likely telemetry relay
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/31/2018 01:08 PM
We need not worry if the truth isn’t immediately obvious.
I would say that is pretty much the mantra of science (and good technology).  Religion and politics require immediate truth.  Science can afford to be patient.  8)

That's because facts take time, the other 2 are feelings.  Feelings won't get one to the moon or mars.

It's been a long cold January, I'm glad we are back to another launch day.

Go F9! Go GovSat-1!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Raul on 01/31/2018 02:55 PM
INTERESTING!

SpaceX recovery support ships Go Quest and Go Searcher have left Port Canaveral.

Possible fairing recovery test!

No, more likely telemetry relay

Go Quest is at the position of probable booster water landing (former droneship landing position) - it means probably to receive telemetry of booster water landing here and visual check.

Go Searcher is at the position of probable fairing landing/splashdown – likely receive telemetry, try to recover the fairing or collect debris.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mgeagon on 01/31/2018 03:14 PM
It is evident that SpaceX believes in minimum refurbishment. “Why detach the legs? Why not expend the entire hardware first launched with NROL 76?” Reduce labor by finding areas that don’t require intervention. However, the legs were detached at LZ1. Furthermore, they appear to be cleaned (not sooty). Why go through the trouble of cleaning the legs and adding weight to a minimum fuel payload for some science that has already been collected two dozen times? There is clearly a great reason, but I cannot fathom what that is.

Mark Eagon
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 01/31/2018 03:23 PM
A ways back Elon mentioned wanting to reduce some return velocity by deploying the legs sooner.
Perhaps they'll test that here. Or not. There could be a few components on one or all legs that are being tested for a Block 5 implementation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 01/31/2018 03:25 PM
A ways back Elon mentioned wanting to reduce some return velocity by deploying the legs sooner.
Perhaps they'll test that here. Or not. There could be a few components on one or all legs that are being tested for a Block 5 implementation.

Errr... what legs?  Look at the pictures.  This Falcon's had a leg-otomy
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mlow on 01/31/2018 03:29 PM
A ways back Elon mentioned wanting to reduce some return velocity by deploying the legs sooner.
Perhaps they'll test that here. Or not. There could be a few components on one or all legs that are being tested for a Block 5 implementation.

Errr... what legs?  Look at the pictures.  This Falcon's had a leg-otomy

Look again, the rocket has legs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/31/2018 03:32 PM
It is evident that SpaceX believes in minimum refurbishment. “Why detach the legs? Why not expend the entire hardware first launched with NROL 76?” Reduce labor by finding areas that don’t require intervention. However, the legs were detached at LZ1. Furthermore, they appear to be cleaned (not sooty). Why go through the trouble of cleaning the legs and adding weight to a minimum fuel payload for some science that has already been collected two dozen times? There is clearly a great reason, but I cannot fathom what that is.

Mark Eagon
1032 originally flew in May, so it was refurbished long before the decision to dump block 3's was made. NASA wanted an original CRS booster so 1035 jumped the queue. The only questions are, have the legs and fins been on since refurb and, if not for FH slip, were they considering recoverying this one?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mgeagon on 01/31/2018 03:32 PM
Errr... what legs?  Look at the pictures.  This Falcon's had a leg-otomy
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=44691.0;attach=1473578;image
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/31/2018 03:34 PM
SpaceX has been working on using more of the atmosphere to slow down Falcon 9 as that saves propellant and will be important for BFR.

F9 1st stage is having quite big angle of attack when it's flying back towards landing location. Quite much of body lift can be gotten even from a cylinder shape, when it's light enough.

And the higher angle of attack saves fuel used to both flying back AND slowing down to landing velocity
This makes sense to me.   Try a higher angle of attack, a test that requires the legs be attached to get realistic results.  Then a three engine landing burn, which they have not used in production yet.  This too requires the legs, since the G forces will be different at leg deployment, even if they are throttling down to one engine at that time.  Two good and useful tests that require the legs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 01/31/2018 03:35 PM
SpaceX has been working on using more of the atmosphere to slow down Falcon 9 as that saves propellant and will be important for BFR.

F9 1st stage is having quite big angle of attack when it's flying back towards landing location. Quite much of body lift can be gotten even from a cylinder shape, when it's light enough.

And the higher angle of attack saves fuel used to both flying back AND slowing down to landing velocity

I do wonder why they aren't using the titanium fins then, won't those do better at holding higher angles of attack for both heating and control authority reasons (I'm assuming that using the fins that way heats them up a lot more than gentler angles)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Scylla on 01/31/2018 03:44 PM
SpaceX has been working on using more of the atmosphere to slow down Falcon 9 as that saves propellant and will be important for BFR.

F9 1st stage is having quite big angle of attack when it's flying back towards landing location. Quite much of body lift can be gotten even from a cylinder shape, when it's light enough.

And the higher angle of attack saves fuel used to both flying back AND slowing down to landing velocity

I do wonder why they aren't using the titanium fins then, won't those do better at holding higher angles of attack for both heating and control authority reasons (I'm assuming that using the fins that way heats them up a lot more than gentler angles)?
Because they're throwing the stage away and titanium is more expensive than aluminum?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/31/2018 03:47 PM
Except aren't the Block 5 legs supposed to look quite different? Therefore potentially negating any detailed info that might be gathered on this flight that hasn't been gleaned already.

And I don't buy the whole "they were already installed prior to knowing it was going expendable, so might as well just leave them on" argument. That seems a bit spurious. There's value in those legs, there's potential failure points during launch in those legs (no matter how small, there's some probability), and there's a mass penalty in those legs.

But - I love a mystery and hoping for a qualified answer!

John (aka 'Hanzl', but not aka 'johnnyhinbos')
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/31/2018 03:58 PM
We need not worry if the truth isn’t immediately obvious.
I would say that is pretty much the mantra of science (and good technology).  Religion and politics require immediate truth.  Science can afford to be patient.  8)
Welcome to the forum! :) Don't forget to check out the lunatic SpaceX party thread... ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mgeagon on 01/31/2018 04:00 PM
If you are going to expend anyway, why not give your customer the most super-synchronous orbit possible? Or, continue to prove reusability. The grid fins add little weight, but provide immense aerodynamic control. The landing legs provide 1000 kg of added gravity losses and only a small portion of reentry drag. It is possible to surmise that this mission falls right on the cusp of recoverability and so SpaceX was left with a conundrum: It is too heavy to recover intact, but light enough to add the cleaned legs to test more aggressive profiles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/31/2018 04:04 PM
If they filled the RP-1 tank to the max and had just enough LOX to get down...

Rockets always basically filled to 100% no matter what the payload mass is
Makes sense on a normal rocket to have as much margin as possible, but do you know for sure if this applies to the F9? The second stage can obviously dump it's excess fuel after the deorbit burn, but the first stage brings it home - seems like a bad idea if things go pear shaped.

F9 S1 can always use any extra fuel for a less-efficient but more gentle entry and landing.
The mission I'm specifically thinking of was formosat - the payload was tiny and it landed on the drone ship downrange. I'll go back and re-watch that mission, but I don't recall any sort of excessively long post sep burns.


They also need to keep extra margin on board in case of an engine out.  There are a number of engine failure scenarios that could still make orbit but would require the entire fuel margins leaving nothing left for return.
I would say that a full load adds to the structural integrity of the LV as well since liquids don't compress...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/31/2018 04:07 PM
It is possible to surmise that this mission falls right on the cusp of recoverability and so SpaceX was left with a conundrum: It is too heavy to recover intact, but light enough to add the cleaned legs to test more aggressive profiles.
5400Kg is about max for block 3 recovery, this mission is well under @ 4230Kg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mgeagon on 01/31/2018 04:23 PM
Yes, it appears a “toasty” landing might be successful. It seems SpaceX wishes to expend this booster. The reasons seem obvious, they are running out of room for stored boosters and have block 5s on the way. Why stick on the landing legs? Why are they cleaned? We are curious about the answer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/31/2018 04:33 PM
Yes, it appears a “toasty” landing might be successful. It seems SpaceX wishes to expend this booster. The reasons seem obvious, they are running out of room for stored boosters and have block 5s on the way. Why stick on the landing legs? Why are they cleaned? We are curious about the answer.
I provided plausible answers to those questions up-thread, but in any event, the launch/webcast is mere hours away, so I'm sure we'll get more definitive answers then.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 01/31/2018 04:37 PM
Speculate
They had already had the mission patches made up and then it was decided to ditch the bird...
Well... clean up a set of used legs and throw em on...
Problem solved...  ;)
(They likely clean them checking for cracks post flight anyway)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 01/31/2018 04:58 PM
Speculate
They had already had the mission patches made up and then it was decided to ditch the bird...
Well... clean up a set of used legs and throw em on...
Problem solved...  ;)
(They likely clean them checking for cracks post flight anyway)

The last Iridium flight had legs on the patch but no legs on the booster, so obviously this doesn't bother SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 01/31/2018 05:03 PM
Yes, it appears a “toasty” landing might be successful. It seems SpaceX wishes to expend this booster. The reasons seem obvious, they are running out of room for stored boosters and have block 5s on the way. Why stick on the landing legs? Why are they cleaned? We are curious about the answer.
There are probably surplus, old model legs they don't need and it would be a good chance to test some things, like deploying the legs earlier.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Elthiryel on 01/31/2018 05:07 PM
Speculate
They had already had the mission patches made up and then it was decided to ditch the bird...
Well... clean up a set of used legs and throw em on...
Problem solved...  ;)
(They likely clean them checking for cracks post flight anyway)

The last Iridium flight had legs on the patch but no legs on the booster, so obviously this doesn't bother SpaceX.

This is not true, there are no legs on the Iridium-4 patch. Anyway, I don't think this is the reason.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Norm38 on 01/31/2018 06:20 PM
That patch is also firing all engines after stage separation.  So the patches have a fair degree of artistic license. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 01/31/2018 07:02 PM
Why stick on the landing legs? Why are they cleaned? We are curious about the answer.

They may not be cleaned; they could be new legs! Perhaps they're testing a different design or different materials?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pechisbeque on 01/31/2018 07:38 PM

Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

Why do you need to speculate?
I'd even count the post above as an update.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 01/31/2018 07:43 PM
Speculate
They had already had the mission patches made up and then it was decided to ditch the bird...
Well... clean up a set of used legs and throw em on...
Problem solved...  ;)
(They likely clean them checking for cracks post flight anyway)

The last Iridium flight had legs on the patch but no legs on the booster, so obviously this doesn't bother SpaceX.

This is not true, there are no legs on the Iridium-4 patch. Anyway, I don't think this is the reason.

I thought I saw one with legs, but it seems like I misremembered. The Iridium patch doesn't show the booster at all.. At any rate, it's definitely not the reason.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: joertexas on 01/31/2018 07:56 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: king1999 on 01/31/2018 08:03 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 01/31/2018 08:04 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

Were there ever 2 shuttles and a third rocket rolled out at once? Maybe a Titan, Atlas, or Delta?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: drnscr on 01/31/2018 08:07 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

No, not a photoshop job... this was taken during the flow for STS-125 which required the LON vehicle to be on LC39-B simultaneously.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Joffan on 01/31/2018 08:10 PM
Pre-webcast track from Testshot Starfish is called "Flight Proven".  :-)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 01/31/2018 08:12 PM

Either the expended booster came on such short notice so they left the legs on for more testing, or they want to burn the old legs in advance of block V along with the fins.
In the latter case, why not just sell them for scrap?

A few things on the configuration of B1032.2 for today's launch:

1. This was planned to be expendable for some time.
2. FH's pending need for the ASDS has nothing to do with B1032.2 being expendable.
3. It has landing legs and grid fins because, while they are expending it, they don't want to just throw a perfectly good test article away without gathering data.
4. This is being treated as a landing to continue to gather data and refine the landing algorithms the F9 computer systems use to land the boosters.

Why do you need to speculate?
I'd even count the post above as an update.

You're new around here, aren't you? We LOVE to speculate. Besides, we moved on from that stuff and are now on "which legs are they? new design? old design? used?"....

Further I doubt the webcast will answer that. We're geekier than they are.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: joertexas on 01/31/2018 08:13 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

Now, that's a really interesting observation - on what are you basing it? Helpful hint - it's real.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2018 08:13 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

Were there ever 2 shuttles and a third rocket rolled out at once? Maybe a Titan, Atlas, or Delta?

2 Delta II's, 2 Atlas II's, Titan IV, and Shuttle were all on the pads at once in the 90's
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2018 08:14 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

That is wrong
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: NWade on 01/31/2018 08:31 PM
Anyone else see what looked like gas venting from the separated fairing as it fell past the rear of S2?  Lends some credence to the rumors/speculation about more recovery testing with the fairings on this flight?
 
--Noel
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ictogan on 01/31/2018 08:32 PM
Note that the call "Recovery vessel has AOS" was made over the net shortly before stage separation.  No first stage recovery on this one, so this is either a dry run or something else.
Perhaps related to fairing recovery?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Terra Incognita on 01/31/2018 08:32 PM
During the webcast I hear "recovery vessel AOS" but they aren't planning to recover this booster.

Was this the fairing recovery vessel?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cebri on 01/31/2018 08:35 PM
Fairing recovery vessel, aka Mr. Steven is at LA port.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: yokem55 on 01/31/2018 08:36 PM
RIP in pieces B1032...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 08:36 PM
Very short interval between landing burn start call-out and the call for legs deployment -- must have been a very hot landing demo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/31/2018 08:36 PM
With short burn prior to splashdown.. anyone else think they used this mission to test  3-engine hover slam profile?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: catdlr on 01/31/2018 08:36 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

No, not a photoshop job... this was taken during the flow for STS-125 which required the LON vehicle to be on LC39-B simultaneously.

Here look for yourself better quality: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_shuttles_Atlantis_(STS-125)_and_Endeavour_(STS-400)_on_launch_pads.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Terra Incognita on 01/31/2018 08:37 PM
So what recovery vessel was getting AOS and why?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cebri on 01/31/2018 08:38 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

No, not a photoshop job... this was taken during the flow for STS-125 which required the LON vehicle to be on LC39-B simultaneously.

Here look for yourself better quality: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_shuttles_Atlantis_(STS-125)_and_Endeavour_(STS-400)_on_launch_pads.jpg

 :o :o

After columbia they always had another shuttle prepared in case anything went wrong, right? (Sorry for the OT)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 01/31/2018 08:38 PM
RIP in pieces B1032...

Hints of it was a 3 engine landing burn in the update thread... (and in video playback audio timeline)
If they get that working... that's good... (saves prop with less gravity losses on landing burn)  8)
At staging... the velocity seemed a bit higher then typical...
...not sure on that however... (they left less in the S1 tanks?)

SO... RIP B1032... but I hope they got good data before you RUD'd...  :-\
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mrhuggy on 01/31/2018 08:39 PM
So what recovery vessel was getting AOS and why?

If they was testing some landing profile they still need to clean up the rubish.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/31/2018 08:40 PM
After columbia they always had another shuttle prepared in case anything went wrong, right? (Sorry for the OT)
This was a special case for the Hubble mission.  All other remaining missions were to the ISS, which could provide safe haven for a crew stuck with an Orbiter that was not cleared to reenter.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mn on 01/31/2018 08:41 PM
Reminder, this is an updates thread. Questions and comments should go to the discussion thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36807
Also please hold your congrats till after the second S2 burn is successful...

I'm sure he meant 'after successful payload deploy'.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: agenttokyo on 01/31/2018 08:43 PM
This was an odd one.  Kept mentioning not recovering, but then recovery ships were deployed?  Also, the nasaspaceflight article mentioned "As with December’s Iridium-NEXT launch, SpaceX will dispose of the older Block 3 booster by flying it in an expendable configuration without landing legs"  but the radio callout included stage 1 legs deployed.  I'm surprised there isn't a need for another sample of the effects on a 2nd use rocket.  Is re-use a gimmick?  Just not worth the risk/reward at this stage of development?  Anyway, yay nominal launch!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Joffan on 01/31/2018 08:44 PM
So what recovery vessel was getting AOS and why?

If they was testing some landing profile they still need to clean up the rubish.

No other launch provider cleans up their ditched stages. The recovery vessel was more likely there for telemetry and perhaps observation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Oberon_Command on 01/31/2018 08:47 PM
This was an odd one.  Kept mentioning not recovering, but then recovery ships were deployed?  Also, the nasaspaceflight article mentioned "As with December’s Iridium-NEXT launch, SpaceX will dispose of the older Block 3 booster by flying it in an expendable configuration without landing legs"  but the radio callout included stage 1 legs deployed.  I'm surprised there isn't a need for another sample of the effects on a 2nd use rocket.

There's been suggestions that they were doing a 3-engine landing burn. They may not want to risk losing the droneship if that went badly.

Quote
Is re-use a gimmick?  Just not worth the risk/reward at this stage of development?

Not sure how you get either of those ideas from SpaceX expending the soon-to-be-obsolescent block 3 boosters in interesting ways.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: The_Ronin on 01/31/2018 08:48 PM
Going by the cadence of the callouts from burn to legs to splashdown, I'm going with the 3 engine suicide burn.  Have they ever landed one of those, yet?  I remember SES-9 punching a nice hole in OCISLY when they tried it then.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 01/31/2018 09:00 PM
[Tweet from Eric Berger] (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/958821666037161987):
Quote
So that's how a payload adapter is supposed to work.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ugordan on 01/31/2018 09:00 PM
Going by the cadence of the callouts from burn to legs to splashdown, I'm going with the 3 engine suicide burn.  Have they ever landed one of those, yet?  I remember SES-9 punching a nice hole in OCISLY when they tried it then.

AFAIK, they never performed a complete landing using a 3 engine burn, it was at most 3 engines for a portion of the landing burn and then a switch to the "normal", single-engine landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Joffan on 01/31/2018 09:01 PM
Another perfect deployment by SpaceX's payload adapter ;-)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/31/2018 09:02 PM
[Tweet from Eric Berger] (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/958821666037161987):
Quote
So that's how a payload adapter is supposed to work.

Oh, come now, Eric; that's just a low blow!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/31/2018 09:03 PM
Judging from the webcast telemetry:

Velocity at cutoff = 35980 km/hr = 9994 m/s.

Add in 402 m/s for Earth rotation (this is not included since velocity is shown as 0 at launch)

That's the speed for a 250 x 51500 km orbit.  So definitely super-synchronous....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 01/31/2018 09:03 PM
[Tweet from Eric Berger] (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/958821666037161987):
Quote
So that's how a payload adapter is supposed to work.

Yep. And a big Flying Fickle Finger of Fate to the ZUMA whiners.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 09:05 PM
[Tweet from Eric Berger] (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/958821666037161987):
Quote
So that's how a payload adapter is supposed to work.

Yep. And a big Flying Fickle Finger of Fate to the ZUMA whiners.

It's a quantum payload adapter. If you watch it, it's either separated or it's not. But if you're not watching it, it can be both separated and not separated at the same time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 01/31/2018 09:06 PM
Going by the cadence of the callouts from burn to legs to splashdown, I'm going with the 3 engine suicide burn.  Have they ever landed one of those, yet?  I remember SES-9 punching a nice hole in OCISLY when they tried it then.

Correct... has never been done successfully yet...
I'm all for expending some block 3's trying to get the bugs out of that 3 engine suicide slam process...
The amount of kick that adds to S2 velocity (because they burned a bit longer before MECO) is worthy of note...
 8)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: king1999 on 01/31/2018 09:07 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

No, not a photoshop job... this was taken during the flow for STS-125 which required the LON vehicle to be on LC39-B simultaneously.

Here look for yourself better quality: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_shuttles_Atlantis_(STS-125)_and_Endeavour_(STS-400)_on_launch_pads.jpg
LOL. I know this is a bit OT, but compare this picture with the one posted earlier. Where are those four lightning towers? Maybe they were being built in this picture and completed in the other picture?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/31/2018 09:11 PM
Trivia that I didn't know before: This is the anniversary of the launch of Explorer-1!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: The_Ronin on 01/31/2018 09:12 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

No, not a photoshop job... this was taken during the flow for STS-125 which required the LON vehicle to be on LC39-B simultaneously.

Here look for yourself better quality: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_shuttles_Atlantis_(STS-125)_and_Endeavour_(STS-400)_on_launch_pads.jpg
LOL. I know this is a bit OT, but compare this picture with the one posted earlier. Where are those four lightning towers? Maybe they were being built in this picture and completed in the other picture?

The one you're claiming photoshop on is from 39A to 39B.  The better quality one that you're asking about the lightning towers is from 39B to 39A.

It's pretty clear when you pay attention.


I'm an idiot.

http://www.orbitersim.com/v2/read.asp?id=21926

Orbiter Fan: "Two times ever? Actually it is about 17 times. Here's an complete list of everytime both Launch Complex 39A&B were occupied by an shuttle stack at the same time:

Shuttles on Both Launch Pads

STS-61-C (Columbia) and STS-51-L (Challenger) Dec. 22, 1985 (rollout of 51-L to Pad B)
to Jan. 12, 1986 (launch of 61-C from Pad B)

STS-31 (Discovery) and STS-35 (Columbia) April 22, 1990 (rollout of STS-35 to Pad A)
to April 24, 1990 (launch of STS-31 from Pad B)

STS-38 (Atlantis) and STS-35 (Columbia) Oct. 14, 1990 (rollout of STS-39 to Pad B)
to Nov. 15, 1990 (launch of STS-38 from Pad A)

STS-37 (Atlantis) and STS-39 (Discovery) April 1, 1991 (rollout of STS-39 to Pad A)
to April 5, 1991 (launch of STS-37 from Pad B)

STS-45 (Atlantis) and STS-49 (Endeavour) March 12, 1992 (rollout of STS-49 to Pad B)
to March 24, 1992 (launch of STS-45 from Pad A)

STS-50 (Columbia) and STS-46 (Atlantis) June 11, 1992 (rollout of STS-46 to Pad B)
to June 25, 1992 (launch of STS-50 from Pad A)

STS-56 (Discovery) and STS-55 (Columbia) Feb. 7, 1993 (rollout of STS-55 to Pad A)
to April 8, 1993 (launch of STS-56 from Pad B)

STS-64 (Discovery) and STS-68 (Endeavour) Aug. 19, 1994 (rollout of STS-64 to Pad B)
to Aug. 24, 1994 (rollback to VAB of STS-68 from Pad A)

STS-71 (Atlantis) and STS-70 (Discovery) May 11, 1995 (rollout of STS-70 to Pad B)
to June 8, 1995 (rollback to VAB of STS-70 from Pad B)

STS-71 (Atlantis) and STS-70 (Discovery) June 15, 1995 (rollout of STS-70 to Pad B)
to June 27, 1995 (launch of STS-71 from Pad A)

STS-70 (Discovery) and STS-69 (Endeavour) July 6, 1995 (rollout of STS-69 to Pad A)
to July 13, 1995 (launch of STS-70 from Pad B)

STS-69 (Endeavour) and STS-73 (Columbia) Aug. 28, 1995 (rollout of STS-73 to Pad B)
to Sept. 7, 1995 (launch of STS-69 to Pad A)

STS-73 (Columbia) and STS-74 (Atlantis) Oct. 12, 1995 (rollout of STS-74 to Pad A)
to Oct. 20, 1995 (launch of STS-73 from Pad B)

STS-95 (Discovery) and STS-88 (Endeavour) Oct. 21, 1998 (rollout of STS-88 to Pad A)
to Oct. 29, 1998 (launch of STS-95 from Pad B)

STS-103 (Discovery) and STS-99 (Endeavour) Dec. 13, 1999 (rollout of STS-99 to Pad A)
to Dec. 19, 1999 (launch of STS-103 from Pad B)

STS-104 (Atlantis) and STS-105 (Discovery) July 2, 2001 (rollout of STS-105 to Pad A)
to July 12, 2001 (launch of STS-104 from Pad B)"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: moralec on 01/31/2018 09:13 PM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

No, not a photoshop job... this was taken during the flow for STS-125 which required the LON vehicle to be on LC39-B simultaneously.

Here look for yourself better quality: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_shuttles_Atlantis_(STS-125)_and_Endeavour_(STS-400)_on_launch_pads.jpg
LOL. I know this is a bit OT, but compare this picture with the one posted earlier. Where are those four lightning towers? Maybe they were being built in this picture and completed in the other picture?

?

The Falcon 9 + Heavy and The Atlantis + Endeavour pictures are not directly comparable.

Shuttle flights were done from Launch Complex 39A and B pads.

SpaceX uses Pad 39A and Pad 40


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/31/2018 09:15 PM
SO... RIP B1032... but I hope they got good data before you RUD'd...  :-\

Minor nit.
This was not a RUD. U = Unscheduled/Unplanned.
This Rapid Disassembly was completely planned.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 09:16 PM
Fairing recovery vessel, aka Mr. Steven is at LA port.


The East Coast fairing tracking/recovery vessel is GO Searcher, which was out with GO Quest for this mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 01/31/2018 09:16 PM

It's a quantum payload adapter. If you watch it, it's either separated or it's not. But if you're not watching it, it can be both separated and not separated at the same time.
That's how I feel about launches I missed. They haven't actually happened until I open the NSF box and look.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 01/31/2018 09:18 PM
SO... RIP B1032... but I hope they got good data before you RUD'd...  :-\

Minor nit.
This was not a RUD. U = Unscheduled/Unplanned.
This Rapid Disassembly was completely planned.

My bad...  :-[
RPD it is... Rapid Planned Disassembly...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 09:18 PM
So what recovery vessel was getting AOS and why?

GO Quest is the usual tracking vessel for ASDS landings. She was likely the "AOS" vessel standing by near the stage 1 splashdown zone.

GO Searcher was likely near the expected fairing splashdown zone, farther downrange.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanO on 01/31/2018 09:45 PM
Congratulations to SpaceX for rounding out the busiest January in decades!

I mean, January had an astonishing thirteen launches in what is normally the least busy month of the year, averaging about four launches in the last decade.  Has the world ever had such a busy start of the year for orbital spaceflight?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: jak Kennedy on 01/31/2018 09:47 PM
Isn't it likely the recovery ship was there to pick up the S1 after a successful splashdown. With empty tanks and a gentle touch down isn't there a good chance it is floating?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/31/2018 09:53 PM
Isn't it likely the recovery ship was there to pick up the S1 after a successful splashdown. With empty tanks and a gentle touch down isn't there a good chance it is floating?
I really hope they could do this. Than the first stage is one very nice museum piece.
But the most likely reason for the ship being there was receiving the telemetry from the first stage.
I think it's a smart move to not risk damaging the landing barges while a block 3 core can't be reused more than two or three times anyway. A bit of corrosion on a museum piece is only nice in my opinion, that shows it's used.

How hard would it be to tow the stage back to port Canaveral? One crew member puts on a wet of dry suit, jumps into the water and ties a rope to the vacuum Merlin pole thingy.
But indeed plenty of used stages. Why hasn't SpaceX donated stages jet of have they?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 09:54 PM
Isn't it likely the recovery ship was there to pick up the S1 after a successful splashdown. With empty tanks and a gentle touch down isn't there a good chance it is floating?

Nope.  Disassembles upon falling over.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 09:55 PM
Isn't it likely the recovery ship was there to pick up the S1 after a successful splashdown. With empty tanks and a gentle touch down isn't there a good chance it is floating?

Touchdown is gentle until the stage topples over and the pressurized tanks smack the water and rupture. And even if the stage remained intact, GO Quest isn't equipped to salvage it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 09:55 PM
Isn't it likely the recovery ship was there to pick up the S1 after a successful splashdown. With empty tanks and a gentle touch down isn't there a good chance it is floating?
I really hope they could do this. Than the first stage is one very nice museum piece.
But the most likely reason for the ship being there was receiving the telemetry from the first stage.
I think it's a smart move to not risk damaging the landing barges while a block 3 core can't be reused more than two or three times anyway. A bit of corrosion on a museum piece is only nice in my opinion, that shows it's used.

They're swimming in museum pieces...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/31/2018 09:58 PM
Isn't it likely the recovery ship was there to pick up the S1 after a successful splashdown. With empty tanks and a gentle touch down isn't there a good chance it is floating?
In the past the stages have tipped over and end up visiting Davey Jones, so unless the landing legs has some lead ballast, this one probably did the same.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 01/31/2018 10:08 PM
And even if the stage remained intact, GO Quest isn't equipped to salvage it.
If you could stick a bow on the interstage and add some ballast to the LOX tank, I think it would tow quite nicely.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Oberon_Command on 01/31/2018 10:19 PM
Would it be possible to keep the first stage upright using the cold gas thrusters after soft splashdown for long enough to allow water to fill the RP-1 tank and act as ballast and vent the LOX tank so the stage doesn't pop?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: deruch on 01/31/2018 10:22 PM
Fairing recovery vessel, aka Mr. Steven is at LA port.

Yeah, no net or bounce house recovery attempt this time.  But they've recovered fairings or pieces that have landed in the water using GO Searcher (or Quest not sure which, but 1 of them).  So, they can track the returning fairing and hope it splashes down under its parachutes softly enough to stay intact.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: deruch on 01/31/2018 10:22 PM
Would it be possible to keep the first stage upright using the cold gas thrusters after soft splashdown for long enough to allow water to fill the RP-1 tank and act as ballast and vent the LOX tank so the stage doesn't pop?

No.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CyndyC on 01/31/2018 10:27 PM
GO Quest is the usual tracking vessel for ASDS landings. She was likely the "AOS" vessel standing by near the stage 1 splashdown zone.

GO Searcher was likely near the expected fairing splashdown zone, farther downrange.

More than likely. It sounds like Raul actually tracked the ships

Go Quest is at the position of probable booster water landing (former droneship landing position) - it means probably to receive telemetry of booster water landing here and visual check.

Go Searcher is at the position of probable fairing landing/splashdown – likely receive telemetry, try to recover the fairing or collect debris.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CyndyC on 01/31/2018 10:33 PM
Yes, it appears a “toasty” landing might be successful. It seems SpaceX wishes to expend this booster. The reasons seem obvious, they are running out of room for stored boosters and have block 5s on the way. Why stick on the landing legs? Why are they cleaned? We are curious about the answer.

There are probably surplus, old model legs they don't need and it would be a good chance to test some things, like deploying the legs earlier.

And a good chance to have somewhere to dump them since the composite is not ideal for recycling ;). They might have also helped expend the RP-1 so less would pollute the ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ValmirGP on 01/31/2018 10:44 PM
Would it be possible to keep the first stage upright using the cold gas thrusters after soft splashdown for long enough to allow water to fill the RP-1 tank and act as ballast and vent the LOX tank so the stage doesn't pop?

Funny you asked that. Earlier I was making some back of the nap calculations to figure the booster density to find out if would float. I guess we all know the answer to that too...

No.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 10:46 PM
Isn't it likely the recovery ship was there to pick up the S1 after a successful splashdown. With empty tanks and a gentle touch down isn't there a good chance it is floating?

Touchdown is gentle until the stage topples over and the pressurized tanks smack the water and rupture. And even if the stage remained intact, GO Quest isn't equipped to salvage it.

And, once again, SpaceX proves us doubters wrong.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/958847818583584768

Quote
This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived. We will try to tow it back to shore.

Now, let me be first to be wrong in predicting it won't survive the tow.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/31/2018 10:48 PM
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

To be fair, I think Elon is probably more amazed than we are.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ValmirGP on 01/31/2018 10:49 PM
Wow, update from Elon https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/958847818583584768

Quote
This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived. We will try to tow it back to shore.

I Spoke too soon....

Wrong AND Wrong. My calculations were off the mark and it didn't pop. Amazing!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ames on 01/31/2018 10:59 PM
9 engine landing burn? Was the mssion patch correct?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Elthiryel on 01/31/2018 11:00 PM
9 engine landing burn? Was the mssion patch correct?

Elon confirmed on Twitter that it was actually a 3-engine landing burn.

Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/958848287628406784
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: jabe on 01/31/2018 11:00 PM
9 engine landing burn? Was the mssion patch correct?
Elon tweeted soon after it was only a 3 engine burn
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 01/31/2018 11:03 PM
Nosferocket 👻
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: eriblo on 01/31/2018 11:06 PM
Would it be possible to keep the first stage upright using the cold gas thrusters after soft splashdown for long enough to allow water to fill the RP-1 tank and act as ballast and vent the LOX tank so the stage doesn't pop?

Funny you asked that. Earlier I was making some back of the nap calculations to figure the booster density to find out if would float. I guess we all know the answer to that too...

No.
It's very easy to estimate whether rocket boosters float, especially for RP-1 fueled ones: The propellants density is close to that of water and they are mostly tankage, so the ratio of buoyancy force to weight is more or less the mass fraction (i.e. 15-20:1).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 11:08 PM
Cue the GO Quest captain.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Bubbinski on 01/31/2018 11:10 PM
So they were testing a “high retrothrust” burn? 3 engine burn at 100% thrust or something like that? How would a high retrothrust burn help future recoveries?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 01/31/2018 11:10 PM
How far out is it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: king1999 on 01/31/2018 11:11 PM
Nosferocket 👻
SpaceX's first torpedo. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/31/2018 11:12 PM
So they were testing a “high retrothrust” burn? 3 engine burn at 100% thrust or something like that? How would a high retrothrust burn help future recoveries?
More fuel efficient, allowing more impulse to be used for pushing the second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ThePonjaX on 01/31/2018 11:14 PM
Maybe the can add some boat engine and the rocket can return by itself   ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: FlokiViking on 01/31/2018 11:15 PM
Here's hoping they got some UAV video of this splashdown, and SpaceX feels the urge to share it with us!  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/31/2018 11:17 PM
What's the ideal expansion ratio for firing a rocket engine under water? We have not considered the the sail back return method...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 11:18 PM
So they were testing a “high retrothrust” burn? 3 engine burn at 100% thrust or something like that? How would a high retrothrust burn help future recoveries?

The problem with a full 3-engine burn is that the timing window for the burn is very short and there isn't time to make much throttle adjustment, so it's difficult not to crash. This test should help them verify/fine tune the control software for the 3-engine burn and make it less likely they'll punch a hole in the ASDS in future.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AUricle on 01/31/2018 11:18 PM
HOLY MOLY!

Watch for a droneship to show up on Craigslist any day now ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2018 11:20 PM
So what recovery vessel was getting AOS and why?

To get landing data
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2018 11:21 PM
Another perfect deployment by SpaceX's payload adapter ;-)

Not SpaceX but RUAG
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: eriblo on 01/31/2018 11:22 PM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2018 11:22 PM
[Tweet from Eric Berger] (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/958821666037161987):
Quote
So that's how a payload adapter is supposed to work.

Yep. And a big Flying Fickle Finger of Fate to the ZUMA whiners.

Too bad it wasn't spacex adapter but RUAG
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: TorenAltair on 01/31/2018 11:22 PM
This is a clear mission failure! The booster was to be thrown away and not towed back.  ???
In case they manage to get enough missions in the future they'll need another drone ship.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 01/31/2018 11:23 PM
[Tweet from Eric Berger] (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/958821666037161987):
Quote
So that's how a payload adapter is supposed to work.

Yep. And a big Flying Fickle Finger of Fate to the ZUMA whiners.

Too bad it wasn't spacex adapter but RUAG
Ant least it wasn't......
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/31/2018 11:26 PM
So, it’s gotta be the legs, right?  This is the only attempt with them. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 01/31/2018 11:31 PM
So, it’s gotta be the legs, right?  This is the only attempt with them.

I believe the landing radar is mounted on a leg...  ;)
If you want to simulate a real landing... it's gotta have legs I guess...

I am LMAO it survived... and may make it back into port under tow...  :o  ???  ;D
A support ship or Drone landing video (if it exists) would make for some interesting watching...  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 01/31/2018 11:34 PM
So, it’s gotta be the legs, right?  This is the only attempt with them.
There were legs on some of the water landings.  Don't you remember the video the guys here reconstructed?  Even so, that stage blew up after tipping over.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Grendal on 01/31/2018 11:39 PM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

This is one of the ships.  They should be able to chain it to the back of the boat and tow it in much quicker than the ASDS moves with a booster on top.  They could also have the other ship out there join this one to help with the tow.  I would think that recovering this floating booster would become a high priority so they can see what damage is caused by an ocean landing and then being in the ocean.  That would be useful data for SpaceX to have.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Prettz on 01/31/2018 11:39 PM
And, once again, SpaceX proves us doubters wrong.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/958847818583584768

Quote
This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived. We will try to tow it back to shore.
How in the f...? That's incredible.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/31/2018 11:40 PM
This is super amazing that B1032 survived the ocean descent!

When I first saw that photo on the SpaceX Party Thread, I thought someone photoshopped a booster that landed on LZ-1 and laid it sideways on a normal picture of the sea.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/31/2018 11:40 PM
So, it’s gotta be the legs, right?  This is the only attempt with them.
There were legs on some of the water landings.  Don't you remember the video the guys here reconstructed?  Even so, that stage blew up after tipping over.
Ah, now that you mention it, you’re right of course.  Thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2018 11:42 PM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

The schedule is a serious consideration. Assuming GO Quest could tow the stage at around 5 knots without breaking it, it could take them 3 days or so to make port, ie Saturday. Then they'd have to turn right around and head out for FH, probably on Sunday.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: TripD on 01/31/2018 11:45 PM
So, this booster would not be denied her victory lap.  :)

If they manage to successfully tow the booster back, will it be the first?  If so, I wonder how much useful info they can glean from it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 01/31/2018 11:48 PM
So, it’s gotta be the legs, right?  This is the only attempt with them.

Nope.  Strong soot.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 01/31/2018 11:48 PM
That's one sturdy piece of hardware... It has been to space twice, and then survives a water landing.  8)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 01/31/2018 11:49 PM
A first for the Falcon. Shuttle SRBs and I think Ariane boosters are/were recovered.

So, this booster would not be denied her victory lap.  :)

If they manage to successfully tow the booster back, will it be the first?  If so, I wonder how much useful info they can glean from it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AUricle on 01/31/2018 11:49 PM
Is this the Ultimate Irony???

Now they can't even lose a booster when they try to..........
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2018 11:50 PM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

This is one of the ships.  They should be able to chain it to the back of the boat and tow it in much quicker than the ASDS moves with a booster on top.  They could also have the other ship out there join this one to help with the tow.  I would think that recovering this floating booster would become a high priority so they can see what damage is caused by an ocean landing and then being in the ocean.  That would be useful data for SpaceX to have.

Not really.  Towing is going to damage it
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 01/31/2018 11:50 PM
Of course, there's no way they'd test-fire it again.
:)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/31/2018 11:51 PM
GovSat 1/SES-16 launch montage partially filmed from the observation deck at Embry-Riddle Daytona Beach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDmeTXfXysE
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 01/31/2018 11:55 PM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

The schedule is a serious consideration. Assuming GO Quest could tow the stage at around 5 knots without breaking it, it could take them 3 days or so to make port, ie Saturday. Then they'd have to turn right around and head out for FH, probably on Sunday.

Would SpaceX consider chartering another boat (not the one that will tow OCISLY out for FH) to head out in next few hours and meet GO Quest to take the rogue stage wreckage in tow?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: macpacheco on 01/31/2018 11:57 PM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

The schedule is a serious consideration. Assuming GO Quest could tow the stage at around 5 knots without breaking it, it could take them 3 days or so to make port, ie Saturday. Then they'd have to turn right around and head out for FH, probably on Sunday.
The thing about towing something is they can shift towing from Go Quest to any other suitable ship while still a day or more away from port. As long as Go Quest has fuel and supplies for the double duty, no problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 12:01 AM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

The schedule is a serious consideration. Assuming GO Quest could tow the stage at around 5 knots without breaking it, it could take them 3 days or so to make port, ie Saturday. Then they'd have to turn right around and head out for FH, probably on Sunday.

Would SpaceX consider chartering another boat (not the one that will tow OCISLY out for FH) to head out in next few hours and meet GO Quest to take the rogue stage in tow?

That's what I'm wondering, too. GQ will be very limited in tow speed by the poor hydrodynamics of a leg-dragging booster. If they could find a tug to go out and meet GQ halfway or so, that would free up GQ to head into port faster for the turnaround.

I had also wondered earlier whether they might have planned on GQ loitering at sea after GovSat to wait for FH. I guess it's a tradeoff of manpower cost vs. fuel cost for another round trip to/from port. I'd imagine she has plenty of fuel/consumable capacity for a loiter.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ValmirGP on 02/01/2018 12:04 AM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

The schedule is a serious consideration. Assuming GO Quest could tow the stage at around 5 knots without breaking it, it could take them 3 days or so to make port, ie Saturday. Then they'd have to turn right around and head out for FH, probably on Sunday.
The thing about towing something is they can shift towing from Go Quest to any other suitable ship while still a day or more away from port. As long as Go Quest has fuel and supplies for the double duty, no problem.

Food and supplies replenishment can be handled to them during the handover to another ship.
But I have a hard time believing it will stay afloat for long. If water begins to seep in it will become an anchor. Better they hurry with some choppers with scuba divers and inflatable buoys if they are serious about getting it back, I think.
But will not be sad to be proven wrong again by this valiant booster...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: allins on 02/01/2018 12:22 AM
I'm wondering if it's a case of velocity > 0 when it hit the water, thus sinking further down before rotating to horizontal?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/01/2018 12:37 AM
Why no boom? Haven't they always gone boom, when they hit the water?

So much has to go right ... for it not to go boom ...

Knowing Musk, he'll truck it back to McGregor and see if they can tease it back for at least a test fire. Or if not that, try an engine or two on a test stand.

Like an extension of the Saturn H-1 firing after salt water immersion.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: lonestriker on 02/01/2018 12:40 AM
I'm constantly amazed by the knowledge of NSF's forum users. And how analytic and prescient the predictions have been. Many members predicted exactly what Elon confirmed with the hot three-engine suicide test landing burn.

The ones who predicted that an intact water landing was impossible can be forgiven though  :). The sheer blind luck or audacity to try and succeed really couldn't be even hoped for. These boosters are supposed to be little more than tin cans in terms of wall thickness after all.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: catdlr on 02/01/2018 12:43 AM
Why no boom? Haven't they always gone boom, when they hit the water?

So much has to go right ... for it not to go boom ...


You need to go back to this flight and water landing videos:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35410.msg1243170#msg1243170

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: DecoLV on 02/01/2018 01:05 AM
I think they have no choice but to try the tow, coz if they don't, someone else will. Somebody could claim it as maritime salvage if SpX abandons it. Maybe some college students would go out there in a speedboat, throw a line on the rocket and try to tow it back to a marina. "Look what we got! We just need to scrub out the prop and then we have the WORLD'S BIGGEST KEGGER!"  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/01/2018 01:06 AM
I think they have no choice but to try the tow, coz if they don't, someone else will. Somebody could claim it as maritime salvage if SpX abandons it. Maybe some college students would go out there in a speedboat, throw a line on the rocket and try to tow it back to a marina. "Look what we got! We just need to scrub out the prop and then we have the WORLD'S BIGGEST KEGGER!"  ;D

Or shoot it, that would pop the tanks and send it to the bottom.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/01/2018 01:10 AM
Also, I'd love to see the condition the grid fins are in, the one that hit the water directly must be beat up somehow, and I wonder what happened to the others (Bent due to the forces on splashdown?)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/01/2018 01:11 AM
Why no boom? Haven't they always gone boom, when they hit the water?

So much has to go right ... for it not to go boom ...


You need to go back to this flight and water landing videos:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35410.msg1243170#msg1243170
Just read the entire thread. Nothing there.

For it not to go boom, you have to safe the booster before it falls over. Can think of a hundred ways things can go wrong.

Wonder if they've sped up "safing" after landing a lot, and/or expend propellant more completely (like with a 3-engine terminal burn). Then all you might have to wait for is vent pressurant, inhibit FTS, and spool down the turbos as the long lead items.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: punder on 02/01/2018 01:19 AM
Elon just announced that the first flight of the Penguin 9 was completely successful.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 02/01/2018 01:30 AM
Better they hurry with some choppers with scuba divers and inflatable buoys if they are serious about getting it back, I think.

I dont know the exact landing position but I am sure it is borderline for rotary aircraft carrying and significant load.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 02/01/2018 01:41 AM
Why no boom? Haven't they always gone boom, when they hit the water?

So much has to go right ... for it not to go boom ...


You need to go back to this flight and water landing videos:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35410.msg1243170#msg1243170
Just read the entire thread. Nothing there.

For it not to go boom, you have to safe the booster before it falls over. Can think of a hundred ways things can go wrong.

Wonder if they've sped up "safing" after landing a lot, and/or expend propellant more completely (like with a 3-engine terminal burn). Then all you might have to wait for is vent pressurant, inhibit FTS, and spool down the turbos as the long lead items.
I thought at least one previous landing survived hitting the water, but broke up quickly due to heavy waves. So, not go boom.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ValmirGP on 02/01/2018 01:43 AM
Better they hurry with some choppers with scuba divers and inflatable buoys if they are serious about getting it back, I think.

I dont know the exact landing position but I am sure it is borderline for rotary aircraft carrying and significant load.

A Westland Sea King HAS Mk.5 helicopter has a range of 741mi. A Sikorsky S-61R helicopter, 779mi. Last that i saw on the threads, the downrange was 327 km. More than enough, I think.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Prettz on 02/01/2018 01:51 AM
So to survive tipping over, does it have to be pressurized, or does it have to be unpressurized?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Razvan on 02/01/2018 02:01 AM
This is a clear mission failure! The booster was to be thrown away and not towed back.  ???
In case they manage to get enough missions in the future they'll need another drone ship.
Why not a carrier (one that is going to be scraped). They can land the booster, one by one and lower them under the deck, refurbish, refuel and hop'em up to LZ.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 02/01/2018 02:03 AM
Another amazing, unprecedented sight.  Now they'll have to deal with this, because they can't just leave it floating.  I can't see how they can get it back into port, though.  I doubt the Port would even let them try. 

 - Ed Kyle
That's probably what people would have thought 10 years ago about a landed rocket on a barge, yet here we are.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 02:12 AM
Another amazing, unprecedented sight.  Now they'll have to deal with this, because they can't just leave it floating.  I can't see how they can get it back into port, though.  I doubt the Port would even let them try. 

 - Ed Kyle

It does look like a case of the dog who caught the bus. But they probably have three days or so of towing before reaching port to figure it out, if the stage stays afloat that long.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: lrk on 02/01/2018 02:16 AM
Another amazing, unprecedented sight.  Now they'll have to deal with this, because they can't just leave it floating.  I can't see how they can get it back into port, though.  I doubt the Port would even let them try. 

Remember, the original plan when they were testing water landings (before they had the droneship) was to tow them back, but none survived the tip-over event.  So they must have had some sort of plan at the time. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: aero on 02/01/2018 02:17 AM
Nosferocket 👻
Looks to me like it is much blacker than the other recovered stages. Maybe it's just the lighting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 02:29 AM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

This is one of the ships.  They should be able to chain it to the back of the boat and tow it in much quicker than the ASDS moves with a booster on top.  They could also have the other ship out there join this one to help with the tow.  I would think that recovering this floating booster would become a high priority so they can see what damage is caused by an ocean landing and then being in the ocean.  That would be useful data for SpaceX to have.

Not really.  Towing is going to damage it

Do you have any evidence for your claim?  Anything other than an argument from authority?

Obviously none of us has evidence, only best guesses. But it's probably a safe bet the stage wasn't designed to be towed, semi-submerged in seawater, with legs extended.

One thing I wonder about is the drag on the submerged legs. The load path of the legs to the body was designed for strength in compression at landing. But in this case there could be tremendous tension on the leg struts and at the strut attach points to the stage. Does one of those attach points fatigue or pull out, breaching the tank and sinking the stage? Or do the struts or fittings just break at the weakest point under tension? Or is it all strong enough to survive days of being dragged through water? Anybody's guess.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 02/01/2018 02:31 AM
 ;D Here’s a suggestion sink it close to shore as a artificial reef. Aircraft carriers, ships, so why not a first stage Falcon 9? Flood the bottom tank first so it sits on the sea bed upright. How cool would that be? A divers paradise and useful for marine life.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Oberon_Command on 02/01/2018 02:34 AM
I would guess they have thought about how to tow it or at least sink it since they've tried a few soft splashdowns. In this case they also have a deadline with the next launch coming up. It would be ironic if this stage is expended (scuttled) due to FH even though the original reason for splashing it was to protect the droneship rather than FH schedule conflicts...  :P

This is one of the ships.  They should be able to chain it to the back of the boat and tow it in much quicker than the ASDS moves with a booster on top.  They could also have the other ship out there join this one to help with the tow.  I would think that recovering this floating booster would become a high priority so they can see what damage is caused by an ocean landing and then being in the ocean.  That would be useful data for SpaceX to have.

Not really.  Towing is going to damage it

Do you have any evidence for your claim?  Anything other than an argument from authority?

Obviously none of us has evidence, only best guesses. But it's probably a safe bet the stage wasn't designed to be towed, semi-submerged in seawater, with legs extended.

One thing I wonder about is the drag on the submerged legs. The load path of the legs to the body was designed for strength in compression at landing. But in this case there could be tremendous tension on the leg struts and at the strut attach points to the stage. Does one of those attach points fatigue or pull out, breaching the tank and sinking the stage? Or do the struts or fittings just break at the weakest point under tension? Or is it all strong enough to survive days of being dragged through water? Anybody's guess.

Maybe they'll tow it from the octaweb?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2018 02:37 AM
I wonder if temporarily leasing a barge with crane to pull the rocket stage out of water might be the best solution - assuming of course that such a barge/ship and team can be mobilized in a day or two.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 02:41 AM
Quote
Maybe they'll tow it from the octaweb?

Maybe, but the aft end is mostly submerged, and the forward end is readily accessible and already designed with attach points for lifting ops, so a forward end tow would be my guess. Also, the way the stage is pitched in the water, a tow from the front has better hydrodynamics.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: kerrycockram on 02/01/2018 02:47 AM
This is a clear mission failure! The booster was to be thrown away and not towed back.  ???
In case they manage to get enough missions in the future they'll need another drone ship.
Why not a carrier (one that is going to be scraped). They can land the booster, one by one and lower them under the deck, refurbish, refuel and hop'em up to LZ.

If you're going to go through the trouble of procuring a carrier (I assume you meant aircraft carrier), why not just launch from the flight deck too? The logistics are similar to the usual kind of aircraft carrier. You need a log train to bring in fuel and new ordinance payloads, remove waste, and swap personnel out.

Did we just build a space navy?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AUricle on 02/01/2018 02:49 AM
We all know about the floating plastic garbage island swirling about in the Pacific, right?

Imagine a similar thing in the Atlantic....except that instead of plastic bottles, it's Falcon 9 cores ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: e of pi on 02/01/2018 02:56 AM
Congratulations to SpaceX, to OrbATK, to Luxembourg and SES, and to all the team who made today possible! We will truly always remember the day they almost--ALMOST! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ZzHXQP08g)--expended booster 1032! Amazing show, keep it rolling!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Comga on 02/01/2018 02:58 AM
Someone posted a picture of both Falcon 9 and FH on the pads. I had an old picture saved that I combined with the new one. These aren't my pictures - I just put them together.

The double shuttle picture was obviously a photoshop job. Not much meaning to compare these two pictures.

That is wrong

Jim waxing eloquent
3 words instead of 1
 ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: toren on 02/01/2018 03:17 AM
I wonder if temporarily leasing a barge with crane to pull the rocket stage out of water might be the best solution - assuming of course that such a barge/ship and team can be mobilized in a day or two.

Move the Port Canaveral crawler crane onto OCISLY with center of gravity a bit offset.  Tow it out to meet the GO sisters and B1032.  Tie onto the booster lift point, hoist away - with care.  Lower legs to ASDS deck to stop it swinging.  Tow OCISLY back into port, crawl crane back onto dockside, carrying booster.  OCISLY back to sea just in time for FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: curtquarquesso on 02/01/2018 03:24 AM
Another amazing, unprecedented sight.  Now they'll have to deal with this, because they can't just leave it floating.  I can't see how they can get it back into port, though.  I doubt the Port would even let them try. 

Remember, the original plan when they were testing water landings (before they had the droneship) was to tow them back, but none survived the tip-over event.  So they must have had some sort of plan at the time.

Was it ever? Correct me if I'm wrong, but liquid propellant-fed engines and seawater don't mix terribly well...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 03:33 AM
I wonder if temporarily leasing a barge with crane to pull the rocket stage out of water might be the best solution - assuming of course that such a barge/ship and team can be mobilized in a day or two.

Move the Port Canaveral crawler crane onto OCISLY with center of gravity a bit offset.  Tow it out to meet the GO sisters and B1032.  Tie onto the booster lift point, hoist away - with care.  Lower legs to ASDS deck to stop it swinging.  Tow OCISLY back into port, crawl crane back onto dockside, carrying booster.  OCISLY back to sea just in time for FH.

Interesting idea, but OCISLY probably has to leave port Saturday for FH and I don't think there's enough time for OCISLY to get involved. They'll want to prioritize catching the FH core over salvaging this one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 02/01/2018 03:42 AM
All joking aside (and it really is kind of funny), they'd probably be best off sinking it in deep water.  It won't tow well, (because it's not a solid-fuel booster that was a lot stronger), they don't have the right kind of equipment and personnel out there, and the Port probably won't want them bringing it back in in that condition.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 03:47 AM
All joking aside (and it really is kind of funny), they'd probably be best off sinking it in deep water.  It won't tow well, (because it's not a solid-fuel booster that was a lot stronger), they don't have the right kind of equipment and personnel out there, and the Port probably won't want them bringing it back in in that condition.

Right about now Elon's probably hoping it will sink on its own and save them the trouble. Problem was, they couldn't just leave it floating there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Razvan on 02/01/2018 03:59 AM
This is a clear mission failure! The booster was to be thrown away and not towed back.  ???
In case they manage to get enough missions in the future they'll need another drone ship.
Why not a carrier (one that is going to be scraped). They can land the booster, one by one and lower them under the deck, refurbish, refuel and hop'em up to LZ.

If you're going to go through the trouble of procuring a carrier (I assume you meant aircraft carrier), why not just launch from the flight deck too? The logistics are similar to the usual kind of aircraft carrier. You need a log train to bring in fuel and new ordinance payloads, remove waste, and swap personnel out.

Did we just build a space navy?
In the name of the United States Space Navy I christen thee Poseidon 1...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Asteroza on 02/01/2018 04:09 AM
Nosferocket 👻

Survival aside, they were testing a new high speed 3 burn landing technique. Instead of a hoverslam landing, we got a


(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

SuperSlam!

Yeah...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: JonathanD on 02/01/2018 04:26 AM
THE BOOSTER THAT WOULD NOT DIE.

Love it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 04:35 AM
We do have a party thread for some of the more off the wall comments.  I move stuff but I get tired, and I think I sprained my finger. So maybe use it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: jpo234 on 02/01/2018 05:29 AM
All joking aside (and it really is kind of funny), they'd probably be best off sinking it in deep water.  It won't tow well, (because it's not a solid-fuel booster that was a lot stronger), they don't have the right kind of equipment and personnel out there, and the Port probably won't want them bringing it back in in that condition.

Right about now Elon's probably hoping it will sink on its own and save them the trouble. Problem was, they couldn't just leave it floating there.
Because of ITAR?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: daveklingler on 02/01/2018 05:59 AM
This is a clear mission failure! The booster was to be thrown away and not towed back.  ???
In case they manage to get enough missions in the future they'll need another drone ship.
Why not a carrier (one that is going to be scraped). They can land the booster, one by one and lower them under the deck, refurbish, refuel and hop'em up to LZ.

If you're going to go through the trouble of procuring a carrier (I assume you meant aircraft carrier), why not just launch from the flight deck too? The logistics are similar to the usual kind of aircraft carrier. You need a log train to bring in fuel and new ordinance payloads, remove waste, and swap personnel out.

Did we just build a space navy?
In the name of the United States Space Navy I christen thee Poseidon 1...

I think you mean "Sea Dragon".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/01/2018 06:26 AM
Wait! The booster survived splash-down more-or-less intact?!? What do they make those things out of, adamantium-vibranium alloy?

I doubt that B1032 will ever fly again but I suspect several engineers at Hawthorne are already salivating at the prospect of seeing how the engine bells and fuel system survived water contact!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: zodiacchris on 02/01/2018 06:43 AM
It’s 300 odd miles out at sea and the only thing keeping it intact is the internal pressure left in the tanks, like an unopened Soft drink can. I don’t think it stands a chance, once that pressure leaks out the thin walls will be crushed, even without trying to tow that thing with the landing gear drag anchors. Shame, as it is the first rocket we know off that has survived an ocean landing... :-\

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ppb on 02/01/2018 06:57 AM
I'm wondering if it's a case of velocity > 0 when it hit the water, thus sinking further down before rotating to horizontal?
This is the best theory I've heard for the stage surviving. So the 3 engine landing burn maybe didn't decelerate perfectly, but the bigger dunk in the water cushioned the tipover.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 02/01/2018 07:12 AM
I agree... I think trying to retrieve it intact will not end well..
Once the stage looses internal pressure, a good wave will likely sink it...
I will be surprised if it's still afloat at sun-up... :-\

That said...
I have to guess that GO Quest has a certified diver or two on board and their equipment...
You would think they would... as it supports OCISLY operations...

Job one, would be retrieve any data cards that can be accessed... hopefully already done...
Job two would be get several lines on the sturdy OctoWeb and the stern of the boat..
Job three is wait for GO Searcher to arrive in support and maybe to act as tow boat...

If it sinks, it's not that heavy, and the lines over the stern may hold till a new plan is decided or abandoned...

If there Is a choice to make... It's about GO Searcher and FH fairing recovery...
Which is worth more to SpaceX... B1032 on a line or the fairings from FH?


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vanoord on 02/01/2018 07:24 AM
My suspicion would be that for whatever reason, it didn’t tip on landing and instead part-submerged vertically first - and that prevented it disassembling.

Shouldn’t be a massive job to tow it back, but the tow would have to be long enough to prevent damage to the towing vessel if the stage goes boom.

Wouldn’t be surprised if another vessel is chartered to bring it back to free up whichever Go twin is towing it.

Then there’s the issue of getting a port to agree to having it towed in...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: toruonu on 02/01/2018 07:30 AM
So... anyone got any of those TLE-s? Tried registering to space-track.org, but the confirmation e-mail hasn't arrived yet...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cuddihy on 02/01/2018 08:05 AM
Uhhh... wouldn’t the simplest idea just be to have the drone ship go out to salvage it? Quick turnaround to FH launch, but should be doable with favorable seas and not having any landing damage to clean up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/01/2018 08:23 AM
In principle, you could start with the stage as sideways as the fins will make it go, at the highest velocity horizontally, and then just before impact, thrust to cancel the horizontal velocity and at the same time kill the remaining vertical velocity, to end up with the stage motionless with respect to the ocean, and a few degrees from the horizontal.

This would have really, really high aero drag coming into landing, saving on fuel, and be able to greatly reduce the elevation of the top of the stage after landing.
The extended legs would also add drag, before engine light, partially countering the engines weight and allowing a steeper inclination on fins alone.

It would also allow landing on a much smaller boat, with a net, like Mr Steven.

I would be astonished if this was what they actually did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: eeergo on 02/01/2018 08:34 AM
IMO the most likely explanation for the stage surviving tip-down, apart from the sea state (which is probably the leading factor), is the presence of deployed legs.

It could have landed as it did in other splashdowns, but in those occasions the stage was free to tip over, acquiring a modest angular velocity, which slammed the pressurized, weaker LOX tanks against the sea surface quite forcefully.

In this case though, at least two of the legs, and up to three, will have made for large drag brakes against the water as soon as they were submerged, in the direction they are designed to withstand loads (vertically upward), and at approximately the pivot point (the engine section).

This means the angular velocity will have been maintained at a quite slow value while the stage tipped over, resulting in little-to-no water slamming (and giving more time to depressurize the tanks).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/01/2018 08:44 AM
They have two ships out there; could one rope the Octoweb and the other the top of the LOX tank so that the stage can be supported between them (or at least kept afloat if the tanks finally crumple and breach)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: toruonu on 02/01/2018 09:37 AM
In this case though, at least two of the legs, and up to three, will have made for large drag brakes against the water as soon as they were submerged, in the direction they are designed to withstand loads (vertically upward), and at approximately the pivot point (the engine section).

This means the angular velocity will have been maintained at a quite slow value while the stage tipped over, resulting in little-to-no water slamming (and giving more time to depressurize the tanks).

I remember that the stage that broke a leg was kept upright for quite a while by the thrusters at the top of the stage because three legs could balance against it. But in water that thruster would effectively reduce the angular speed and might in combination with the drag from legs indeed provide slow enough tipover.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: uhuznaa on 02/01/2018 10:17 AM
All joking aside (and it really is kind of funny), they'd probably be best off sinking it in deep water.  It won't tow well, (because it's not a solid-fuel booster that was a lot stronger), they don't have the right kind of equipment and personnel out there, and the Port probably won't want them bringing it back in in that condition.

Right about now Elon's probably hoping it will sink on its own and save them the trouble. Problem was, they couldn't just leave it floating there.

Just fire a few shots at the tanks from a safe distance to make sure they aren't pressurized anymore, then run it over with the ship in the middle. Drag on board whatever is still floating then.

I agree that trying to tow it is not worth the time and effort and would be just a complex way to sink it sooner or later anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ValmirGP on 02/01/2018 10:32 AM
All joking aside (and it really is kind of funny), they'd probably be best off sinking it in deep water.  It won't tow well, (because it's not a solid-fuel booster that was a lot stronger), they don't have the right kind of equipment and personnel out there, and the Port probably won't want them bringing it back in in that condition.

Right about now Elon's probably hoping it will sink on its own and save them the trouble. Problem was, they couldn't just leave it floating there.

Just fire a few shots at the tanks from a safe distance to make sure they aren't pressurized anymore, then run it over with the ship in the middle. Drag on board whatever is still floating then.

I agree that trying to tow it is not worth the time and effort and would be just a complex way to sink it sooner or later anyway.

I believe it would be easier to just detonate the booster with the already on board Termination System. I don't know how it works exactly, but even if it depends on the existence of fuel on the tanks, I guess the mere gaseous remains of the fuel on the tank would suffice to do the trick.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 02/01/2018 12:52 PM
I believe it would be easier to just detonate the booster with the already on board Termination System. I don't know how it works exactly, but even if it depends on the existence of fuel on the tanks, I guess the mere gaseous remains of the fuel on the tank would suffice to do the trick.

I think the termination system is essentially a line of detonation cord running along the raceway.

The Fuel fumes are less dangerous than inside a gasoline tank in your car, and the fuel tank is normally pressurized with an inert gas (Helium for Falcon 9).
No oxidizer, no boom.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 02/01/2018 01:18 PM
IMO the most likely explanation for the stage surviving tip-down, apart from the sea state (which is probably the leading factor), is the presence of deployed legs.


This might be true except for the fact that every attempt (even the water ones) had legs.  The very first one that the 'crowd-sourced' debugging of the video here on this site clearly shows landing leg deployment.



ps.  To everyone else I was wrong about my my 'legectomy' comment earlier.  I completely mis-interpreted that picture. :(  Totally my bad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2018 01:38 PM

The Fuel fumes are less dangerous than inside a gasoline tank in your car, and the fuel tank is normally pressurized with an inert gas (Helium for Falcon 9).
No oxidizer, no boom.

Not really, previous vehicles that fell over after landing made some big booms
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/01/2018 01:45 PM
I wonder if Port Canaveral is deep enough to get the booster vertical and out without the legs or octaweb hitting the bottom.

I'm wondering if they'll bring OCISLY with a crane on it a bit off shore and pick it up there, then do the usual offload procedure at Port.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cartman on 02/01/2018 01:52 PM
How hard would it be for the weight of the stage to be calculated or at least bounded from the released image?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: eeergo on 02/01/2018 02:00 PM

IMO the most likely explanation for the stage surviving tip-down, apart from the sea state (which is probably the leading factor), is the presence of deployed legs.


This might be true except for the fact that every attempt (even the water ones) had legs.  The very first one that the 'crowd-sourced' debugging of the video here on this site clearly shows landing leg deployment.


Not every soft splashdown attempt had legs, but regardless, every one of them has two key differences with respect to this case: they were either not v1.2 (FT) stages or the sea state was rough, or both:


MISSION          VERSION       LEGS       SEA STATE     OTHER FAILURES

Cassiope           1.1                X             ?                   √
SpX-3               1.1                √            X                   -
OG2(1)             1.1                √            √                   -
SpX-4               1.1                X            √                   -
DSCOVR            1.1               √            X                   -
IridiumNEXT(4)  1.2               X            ?                    -
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 02/01/2018 02:05 PM
 They should have kept the original Marmac 300. You didn't have to worry about lifting loads onto it's deck. It could go to them.
http://www.dredgemag.com/March-April-2003/Titan-Lifts-4000-ton-Wreck/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/01/2018 02:07 PM
Bit of a pickle SpaceX has gotten into. Not sure if the stage would stand on its legs if it were to be helped up. They have a giant aluminum balloon basically, with kerosene fumes, explosives, TEA-TEB, and compressed gases aboard being towed toward civilization. Would they risk bringing it into Port Canaveral? What permissions would they need?

Though it will be interesting to see what happens, I don't see any upside to continued salvage operations.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Firehawk153 on 02/01/2018 02:37 PM
It’s 300 odd miles out at sea and the only thing keeping it intact is the internal pressure left in the tanks, like an unopened Soft drink can. I don’t think it stands a chance, once that pressure leaks out the thin walls will be crushed, even without trying to tow that thing with the landing gear drag anchors. Shame, as it is the first rocket we know off that has survived an ocean landing... :-\



I've seen a picture (I believe on this forum) of either a Titan or Titan II first stage that more or less landed undamaged intact in the ocean.  It was pulled alongside a recovery ship.  Some of our resident members with a better recall may know the photograph I'm referring to.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Skylab on 02/01/2018 02:52 PM
This one may have been it.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2018 03:44 PM
It’s 300 odd miles out at sea and the only thing keeping it intact is the internal pressure left in the tanks, like an unopened Soft drink can. I don’t think it stands a chance, once that pressure leaks out the thin walls will be crushed, even without trying to tow that thing with the landing gear drag anchors. Shame, as it is the first rocket we know off that has survived an ocean landing... :-\



I've seen a picture (I believe on this forum) of either a Titan or Titan II first stage that more or less landed undamaged intact in the ocean.  It was pulled alongside a recovery ship.  Some of our resident members with a better recall may know the photograph I'm referring to.

One half of the stage.  Just the ox tank and no engines
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 04:18 PM
All joking aside (and it really is kind of funny), they'd probably be best off sinking it in deep water.  It won't tow well, (because it's not a solid-fuel booster that was a lot stronger), they don't have the right kind of equipment and personnel out there, and the Port probably won't want them bringing it back in in that condition.

Right about now Elon's probably hoping it will sink on its own and save them the trouble. Problem was, they couldn't just leave it floating there.
Because of ITAR?
Also it's a hazard to navigation. Which it would not be if sunk in deep water.

The issue bringing it back is that there is some marginal situation in which it sinks (or partly sinks so it's sticking out) in a very bad spot, some narrow part of the port entrance for example, and gums up the port...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 02/01/2018 04:21 PM
Ok, my theory:  This came to a stop with engines firing in a vertical position with the legs just touching the wave tops. At cut-off the water below would be boiling and full of air bubbles from the rocket exhaust. This would have created a soft cushion for the rocket to fall into and probably went straight down most if not all of its length. It then bobbed back to the surface, falling over as it did so causing very little bending stress. I maintain that the primary reason for no breakup was the combination of vertical position, zero velocity at cut-off and "soft" water.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: starhawk92 on 02/01/2018 05:18 PM
The engines are full of salt water -- is this worth recovering for some non-engine related engineering lessons, or more for the boats to learn to deal with a rocket which fell off the barge?  Or is there another reason this is valuable to get to land and review?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mme on 02/01/2018 05:24 PM
The engines are full of salt water -- is this worth recovering for some non-engine related engineering lessons, or more for the boats to learn to deal with a rocket which fell off the barge?  Or is there another reason this is valuable to get to land and review?
There may be data/video stored that was not transmitted.  I don't know if they need to get it to land to retrieve.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 05:28 PM
The engines are full of salt water -- is this worth recovering for some non-engine related engineering lessons, or more for the boats to learn to deal with a rocket which fell off the barge?  Or is there another reason this is valuable to get to land and review?

In theory they could do something like test fire one of the engines to see if it survives after being dunked in seawater, but why? They're never going to try to refly submerged engines, because they'll have so many recovered non-submerged engines.

IMO, probably the main reason they decided to tow was that they couldn't just leave the booster floating there, for navigation hazard reasons as Lar mentioned, or on the off chance it got snagged by a Russian "fishing vessel."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: input~2 on 02/01/2018 05:34 PM
2018-013A    43178    PAYLOAD    SES-16/GOVSAT-1   
2018-013B    43179    ROCKET BODY    FALCON 9 R/B   

I guess no public TLEs are to be expected for this NATO linked military satellite
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/01/2018 05:35 PM
2018-013A    43178    PAYLOAD    SES-16/GOVSAT-1   
2018-013B    43179    ROCKET BODY    FALCON 9 R/B   

I guess no public TLEs are to be expected for this NATO linked military satellite
correct
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 02/01/2018 05:41 PM
Let us not forget, THEY have seen what happened at touch down and we have not...  ;)

They may be amazed as heck it did not pop, and want very badly to look at that airframe to understand it better...
The other comments of salvaging the onboard data could also be a high priority with them...

I for one can't believe the port will let them just drag it in... Or it will stay in one piece very long...  ???

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Elthiryel on 02/01/2018 05:49 PM
I find it a bit strange that they are not releasing TLEs, but at the same time the final position in the GEO has been publicly announced, it was included in the mission press kit. So everyone will know where the satellite is, anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/01/2018 05:56 PM
I guess I'm just stuck in a rut - because unlike the majority of comments on here stating that "they see no reason to try to bring this booster home", I am of the continual thinking that attempting to bring this booster home is a very Elon way of thinking. Let me put it another way...

- Non-Elon way of thinking five years ago. "Of course you'd expend the booster. Why waste prop on recovery. Every drop is needed to put towards payload delivery - besides, recovery is expensive and preposterous."

- Elon way of thinking five years ago. "(Chuckle) Boy, I bet we can recover the booster in a way that we could reuse that sucker. Who cares if the first dozen blow up while trying. Now, where'd I leave that flamethrower prototype..."

I have many (many) other examples I could concoct, but point being - Elon tries things, even if he's pretty sure it'll fail, because even in failure cool things can be learned. Plus - and this is my general way of thinking too - often times to my detriment - if the general opinion says do A then perhaps the opposite of A is worth considering because A had been done to death...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/01/2018 06:11 PM
Core will make a great display totem somewhere. 8)

Just how many intact zombie rocket cores is out there?  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cambrianera on 02/01/2018 06:14 PM
How hard would it be for the weight of the stage to be calculated or at least bounded from the released image?
Very hard.
Volume of the stage is about 400 m3, mass (from other sources) about 25 t.
Buoyancy line is very low (half a meter to one meter).
Interstage not touching water was +/- expected
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 02/01/2018 06:39 PM
How hard would it be for the weight of the stage to be calculated or at least bounded from the released image?

I dont think its hard, just some work and it would not be very precise. We know the dimensions of the first stage, with image analysis you can guestimate the part of the rocket that is under water. With the water density and the submerged volume, you can calculate the mass. I guess it takes more than 20 minutes and less than 1 hour.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 02/01/2018 06:39 PM
I guess I'm just stuck in a rut - because unlike the majority of comments on here stating that "they see no reason to try to bring this booster home", I am of the continual thinking that attempting to bring this booster home is a very Elon way of thinking.

Elon is a genius at PR and marketing. I expect they've already decided if there's a recovery plan with a decent chance of success. If so, then he will play on the general public's penchant for anthropomorphising everything and for plucky underdog stories. There'll be tweets about 'only 50% chance of success' ; 'how the booster isn't giving up'; 'no booster left behind', 'only 20 miles to go, will it make it' etc, etc. Before you know it it will sail into Port Canaveral with huge crowds flying yellow ribbons! Result: large increase in awareness of SpaceX among the general public - favorable awareness at that - which may translate into political support.

If they can't think of such a recovery plan then it will be 'oh dear it sunk' and it'll be forgotten about when FH launches!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RoboGoofers on 02/01/2018 06:42 PM
About the suggestion to retrieve data cards: Would the stage be designed to store data or video that wasn't transmitted? Perhaps some kind of black box for accident investigation, but surely not for video storage?

Also, could the legs have been deployed after splashdown? it seems something like that would help cushion the tople.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/01/2018 06:55 PM
About the suggestion to retrieve data cards: Would the stage be designed to store data or video that wasn't transmitted? Perhaps some kind of black box for accident investigation, but surely not for video storage?
Much modern electronics is quite water resistant from the point of saltwater immersion after poweroff.
Camera SD cards are routinely recovered from non-waterproof cameras that have fallen into the sea.
Wash it off, and power it up, and much data storage hardware will come back.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AUricle on 02/01/2018 07:03 PM
Also, could the legs have been deployed after splashdown? it seems something like that would help cushion the tople.

If you listen to the webcast of the launch, the landing leg deployment is called out a few seconds after the call out of the landing burn start up
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 07:24 PM
The engines are full of salt water -- is this worth recovering for some non-engine related engineering lessons, or more for the boats to learn to deal with a rocket which fell off the barge?  Or is there another reason this is valuable to get to land and review?
There may be data/video stored that was not transmitted.  I don't know if they need to get it to land to retrieve.
I can't remember where but I recall hearing there are Gopro cameras that have memory cards that are worth retrieving, because they have more info than is transmitted. If I were a betting man I'd give 10-1 odds that those are already onboard one of the Go twins as surely they have at least a couple guys with Scuba gear and wet (or dry) suits along... just in case.

As for bringing the whole stage back I do think they will give it a try. Because PR.

And because, as so eloquently pointed ou above, Elon is a showman and physics doesn't say it's impossible.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/01/2018 07:27 PM
The engines are full of salt water -- is this worth recovering for some non-engine related engineering lessons, or more for the boats to learn to deal with a rocket which fell off the barge?  Or is there another reason this is valuable to get to land and review?
There may be data/video stored that was not transmitted.  I don't know if they need to get it to land to retrieve.
I can't remember where but I recall hearing there are Gopro cameras that have memory cards that are worth retrieving, because they have more info than is transmitted. If I were a betting man I'd give 10-1 odds that those are already onboard one of the Go twins as surely they have at least a couple guys with Scuba gear and wet (or dry) suits along... just in case.

As for bringing the whole stage back I do think they will give it a try. Because PR.

And because, as so eloquently pointed ou above, Elon is a showman and physics doesn't say it's impossible.

I mean, the boat's coming back anyway, why not bring back a souvenir.

If this booster survives the trip back and gets onto land, I think this is Smithsonian-worthy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/01/2018 07:39 PM
I can't remember where but I recall hearing there are Gopro cameras that have memory cards that are worth retrieving, because they have more info than is transmitted. If I were a betting man I'd give 10-1 odds that those are already onboard one of the Go twins as surely they have at least a couple guys with Scuba gear and wet (or dry) suits along... just in case.

Won't the stage still be moderately pressurised, to the point that if something happened divers next to it would be killed?

Or do the tanks actually get vented to atmospheric?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Prettz on 02/01/2018 07:56 PM
I can't remember where but I recall hearing there are Gopro cameras that have memory cards that are worth retrieving, because they have more info than is transmitted. If I were a betting man I'd give 10-1 odds that those are already onboard one of the Go twins as surely they have at least a couple guys with Scuba gear and wet (or dry) suits along... just in case.

Won't the stage still be moderately pressurised, to the point that if something happened divers next to it would be killed?

Or do the tanks actually get vented to atmospheric?
I asked this earlier and it got lost in all the back-and-forth. Still wanting to know which it is.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: lrk on 02/01/2018 08:04 PM
I can't remember where but I recall hearing there are Gopro cameras that have memory cards that are worth retrieving, because they have more info than is transmitted. If I were a betting man I'd give 10-1 odds that those are already onboard one of the Go twins as surely they have at least a couple guys with Scuba gear and wet (or dry) suits along... just in case.

Won't the stage still be moderately pressurised, to the point that if something happened divers next to it would be killed?

Or do the tanks actually get vented to atmospheric?

They routinely haul boosters across the country somewhat pressurized, although I'm not sure to what level.  So a pressurized booster can't be that dangerous. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 08:04 PM
I can't remember where but I recall hearing there are Gopro cameras that have memory cards that are worth retrieving, because they have more info than is transmitted. If I were a betting man I'd give 10-1 odds that those are already onboard one of the Go twins as surely they have at least a couple guys with Scuba gear and wet (or dry) suits along... just in case.

Won't the stage still be moderately pressurised, to the point that if something happened divers next to it would be killed?

Or do the tanks actually get vented to atmospheric?


I don't know but if that's true, I would expect all the "put a floatation collar on it" and "attach a tow line to the interstage" suggestions are also non starters?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: gongora on 02/01/2018 08:06 PM
They routinely haul boosters across the country somewhat pressurized, although I'm not sure to what level.  So a pressurized booster can't be that dangerous.

This booster has a lot of liquids and gases (and explosives) that wouldn't be in the boosters getting trucked around the country.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/01/2018 08:16 PM
Elon likes a good story and this is a good story.  The first stage booster that wouldn't sink.  AFAIK, if SpaceX can bring this booster back, this will be the first fully intact, liquid first stage booster in history, that has been recovered.  Look at the excitement this stage has made on this website.  This would be one more first for Elon and SpaceX. 

I hate to break it too you, but they have recovered MANY boosters. They have all been fully intact. Even more intact than this one.

I also feel that there will be valuable information that can be gleaned from this booster if it can be recovered.  "I think I can, I think I can," I think that SpaceX that will be able to recover this booster.  Even if it does sink, it will make another great Elon story.  The great booster rescue. :)

What valuable information?  :o How it floats? It matters not... Water handling is not a requirement of F9.  ;D This one will likely not yield any real useful engineering data, other than an indication it is built well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 08:22 PM
They routinely haul boosters across the country somewhat pressurized, although I'm not sure to what level.  So a pressurized booster can't be that dangerous.

This booster has a lot of liquids and gases (and explosives) that wouldn't be in the boosters getting trucked around the country.

That's interesting. The transport trailers have devices that I beleive keep the stage tanks partially pressurised with inert gas (nitrogen or atmosphere?) so no liquids or gases but I always assumed that the plastic explosive zipcord was put on in Hatwthorne[1], not at the launch pad... so it WOULD have explosives on it during transport. Wrong?

1 - and stayed on forever, across reuses, even?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 02/01/2018 08:28 PM
They routinely haul boosters across the country somewhat pressurized, although I'm not sure to what level.  So a pressurized booster can't be that dangerous.

This booster has a lot of liquids and gases (and explosives) that wouldn't be in the boosters getting trucked around the country.

That's interesting. The transport trailers have devices that I beleive keep the stage tanks partially pressurised with inert gas (nitrogen or atmosphere?) so no liquids or gasses but I always assumed that the plastic explosive zipcord was put on in Hatwthorne, not at the launch pad... so it WOULD have explosives on it during transport. Wrong?
Also what do they do, when they 'safe' the booster? How much 'safe-ing' were they able to do on this booster?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 08:29 PM
What valuable information?  :o How it floats? It matters not... Water handling is not a requirement of F9.  ;D This one will likely not yield any real useful engineering data, other than an indication it is built well.

And that's valuable... Why didn't it pop and RUD? It should have. How much material might be removable going forward to save weight (and cost)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vanoord on 02/01/2018 08:47 PM
Even if there’s no specific reason for bringing the stage back to inspect it, there may be things found on inspection that nobody was looking for or expected. That might - or might not - be valuable.

One benefit *could* be to see how immersion affects the vehicle from a point of view of potential recovery of upper stages into the ocean (landing legs not required).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CyndyC on 02/01/2018 08:57 PM
Even if there’s no specific reason for bringing the stage back to inspect it, there may be things found on inspection that nobody was looking for or expected. That might - or might not - be valuable.

One benefit *could* be to see how immersion affects the vehicle from a point of view of potential recovery of upper stages into the ocean (landing legs not required).

Dragons have been recovered and reused that way, so why not the stages. At a recent pre-mission press conference we were told SpaceX learned they needed to make the Dragon more water tight, so they did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CyndyC on 02/01/2018 09:09 PM
Won't the stage still be moderately pressurized, to the point that if something happened divers next to it would be killed? Or do the tanks actually get vented to atmospheric?

Also what do they do, when they 'safe' the booster? How much 'safe-ing' were they able to do on this booster?

Found one of the first NSF articles about the ASDS dated June 18, 2015 with the following:

Quote
Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX’s Vice President for Mission Assurance, said in a press conference before the CRS-5 mission that it would take about one to two hours after a landing for the crew to safe the stage remotely before boarding the drone ship. Remote-controlled safing activities would likely include venting pressurized helium from the fuel tank and venting residual LOX.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/spacex-augments-upgrades-drone-ship-armada/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/01/2018 09:18 PM
Quote
Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX’s Vice President for Mission Assurance, said in a press conference before the CRS-5 mission that it would take about one to two hours after a landing for the crew to safe the stage remotely before boarding the drone ship. Remote-controlled safing activities would likely include venting pressurized helium from the fuel tank and venting residual LOX.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/spacex-augments-upgrades-drone-ship-armada/

Which works well if the stage has power, and the antennas are in line of sight and not underwater.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2018 09:23 PM
Even if there’s no specific reason for bringing the stage back to inspect it, there may be things found on inspection that nobody was looking for or expected. That might - or might not - be valuable.

One benefit *could* be to see how immersion affects the vehicle from a point of view of potential recovery of upper stages into the ocean (landing legs not required).

Dragons have been recovered and reused that way, so why not the stages. At a recent pre-mission press conference we were told SpaceX learned they needed to make the Dragon more water tight, so they did.

Because Dragons are designed for it and stages are designed for dry landings.  Stages have many unsealed compartments that are purged pre launch.  These compartment can't be made watertight
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CyndyC on 02/01/2018 09:32 PM
Even if there’s no specific reason for bringing the stage back to inspect it, there may be things found on inspection that nobody was looking for or expected. That might - or might not - be valuable.

One benefit *could* be to see how immersion affects the vehicle from a point of view of potential recovery of upper stages into the ocean (landing legs not required).

Dragons have been recovered and reused that way, so why not the stages. At a recent pre-mission press conference we were told SpaceX learned they needed to make the Dragon more water tight, so they did.

Because Dragons are designed for it and stages are designed for dry landings.  Stages have many unsealed compartments that are purged pre launch.  These compartment can't be made watertight

Well, ok, but you know SpaceX. Right now I have about a $50 cover at the top of a 1938 chimney that can be opened from the inside with an extra long chain to let smoke out, and can be closed from the inside with the same chain to keep rain water from coming in, and it does a really good job of both.

Edit to add most people here are probably familiar with "backflow valves" too, which prevent hard running water and its pressure from flowing back into the system when the water is shut off - similar mechanism might be used to purge whatever underwater and close up before water has a chance to get in.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/01/2018 09:43 PM
Is it reasonable to assume they had a vessel there to capture telemetry and video of the water landing? They did post a picture of the first stage floating quickly after the ditching. The major information of such a landing they likely already have.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 10:05 PM
They should have kept the original Marmac 300. You didn't have to worry about lifting loads onto it's deck. It could go to them.
http://www.dredgemag.com/March-April-2003/Titan-Lifts-4000-ton-Wreck/

I thought all the Marmacs could do that? If not maybe the rental was less for the others... oops.

Yet more images from SpaceX

and yet, not the ones we really want! :) (they are gorgeous but I'm jaded)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Freddedonna on 02/01/2018 10:46 PM
Seems to me like dragging the booster and somehow getting it to port/ground might take just as long or longer than just towing the ASDS would have taken under more normal circumstances, which was apparently already too much.
Do we have any idea if they have time to get back to port to grab the ASDS and head out for the FH launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/01/2018 10:57 PM

Do we have any idea if they have time to get back to port to grab the ASDS and head out for the FH launch?

The ASDS is towed by a tug, this time probably "Hawk," not by GO Quest now towing the booster. So those events are independent.

The question is, will GO Quest get in and back out in time for FH. Quest has a faster top speed than the ASDS under tow, so as long she gets back out of port by late Sunday/early Monday, they'll be OK, though that may be cutting it close.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/01/2018 10:58 PM
Seems to me like dragging the booster and somehow getting it to port/ground might take just as long or longer than just towing the ASDS would have taken under more normal circumstances, which was apparently already too much.
Do we have any idea if they have time to get back to port to grab the ASDS and head out for the FH launch?
A tow can be handed off in mid ocean so the Go Twins could head to their stations for the FH launch. But once you start using the ASDS you are committed to returning all the way and unloading and then going back out.. .so no, not the same timeframe.

THAT said, taking the ASDS out is done with tugs, not the Go Twins. BUT once out there, then what? Unless you brought a big crane with you, it doesn't do you much good.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/01/2018 11:04 PM
They routinely haul boosters across the country somewhat pressurized, although I'm not sure to what level.  So a pressurized booster can't be that dangerous.

This booster has a lot of liquids and gases (and explosives) that wouldn't be in the boosters getting trucked around the country.

That's interesting. The transport trailers have devices that I beleive keep the stage tanks partially pressurised with inert gas (nitrogen or atmosphere?) so no liquids or gasses but I always assumed that the plastic explosive zipcord was put on in Hatwthorne, not at the launch pad... so it WOULD have explosives on it during transport. Wrong?
Also what do they do, when they 'safe' the booster? How much 'safe-ing' were they able to do on this booster?
Typically safing (and arming) is handled by a purpose build device that provides a physical connection via mechanical interface between the detcord and detonator.

Here’s an example:

 http://www.eba-d.com/products/electro-mechanical-safe-arm-sa-device/

EDIT: I’m just referring to the safing of the FTS system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 02/01/2018 11:09 PM
Seems to me like dragging the booster and somehow getting it to port/ground might take just as long or longer than just towing the ASDS would have taken under more normal circumstances, which was apparently already too much.
Do we have any idea if they have time to get back to port to grab the ASDS and head out for the FH launch?

It's thought by myself and others here that the seagoing tugboat HAWK will be taking OCISLY (ASDS) out to sea in about 24 hours from now... For the FH launch attempt next Tuesday...
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:430027/mmsi:366943250/imo:9103295/vessel:HAWK (https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:430027/mmsi:366943250/imo:9103295/vessel:HAWK)
The GO boats can cruise MUCH faster... if one needs to run in to get something and run back out...
ALSO... they have in the past, run to ports in the Bahamas for supplies or to get people on/off...
My guess is GO Quest will mind the booster for now and Go Searcher will take over later this weekend...
GO Quest will meet HAWK and OCISLY at the 215 mile planned point late Monday and make this work out...
GO Searcher will likely not be on fairing duty for FH... is my opinion (assuming B1032 stays afloat)...

Past that... and assuming the stage is still afloat come Wednesday or so...
Some kind of "take a hired crane barge out 25+ miles and fish the stage out onto a different ship" kind of operation is at least possible...

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Exastro on 02/01/2018 11:20 PM
I may have missed a post that made this point:


Plan A for recovering F9s was parachuting them into the ocean.  SX must have had detailed plans and hardware for retrieving them, no?  It's possible some of that capability was lost in the series of F9 upgrades, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: MechE31 on 02/02/2018 01:32 AM
They routinely haul boosters across the country somewhat pressurized, although I'm not sure to what level.  So a pressurized booster can't be that dangerous.

This booster has a lot of liquids and gases (and explosives) that wouldn't be in the boosters getting trucked around the country.

That's interesting. The transport trailers have devices that I beleive keep the stage tanks partially pressurised with inert gas (nitrogen or atmosphere?) so no liquids or gases but I always assumed that the plastic explosive zipcord was put on in Hatwthorne[1], not at the launch pad... so it WOULD have explosives on it during transport. Wrong?

1 - and stayed on forever, across reuses, even?

All actual explosives are installed at the launch site, including the det cord, shape charges and initiators.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 02/02/2018 02:10 AM
Quote
Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX’s Vice President for Mission Assurance, said in a press conference before the CRS-5 mission that it would take about one to two hours after a landing for the crew to safe the stage remotely before boarding the drone ship. Remote-controlled safing activities would likely include venting pressurized helium from the fuel tank and venting residual LOX.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/spacex-augments-upgrades-drone-ship-armada/

Which works well if the stage has power, and the antennas are in line of sight and not underwater.

I'm pretty sure Hans meant autonomously, not literally "remote controlled". I highly doubt they would have a human in the loop instead of having the stage pre-programmed to safe itself. If true, the stage should should vent everything as soon as it confirms altitude and velocity are zeroed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CyndyC on 02/02/2018 03:34 AM
Going by the cadence of the callouts from burn to legs to splashdown, I'm going with the 3 engine suicide burn.  Have they ever landed one of those, yet?  I remember SES-9 punching a nice hole in OCISLY when they tried it then.

A couple of different people answered Ronin's inquiry to the negative, and one thought there was no more than a 3-1 burn that succeeded, and I didn't see anyone disagree with those answers.

When I was searching for the old ASDS article, I came across some headlines with part of a paragraph showing, "Fresh from its unique three engine landing success, the Falcon 9 first stage (F9-0024-S1) has arrived back to the Florida coast from where it successfully launched the JCSAT-14 satellite." That article was by Chris Bergin in May 2016 covering the return to port. The article quoted a tweet from Elon, “This was a three-engine landing burn, so triple deceleration of last flight. That’s important to minimize gravity losses.”

There was also an article by William Graham covering the launch itself and describing the landing burn this way, "The success was also aided by the multi-engine landing burn option, with three – as opposed to one – Merlin 1D igniting for touchdown."

The JCSAT-14 was a GTO launch and the 3rd successful landing, after LEO OG-2 on land, the SES-9 GTO mishap, and LEO CRS-8 on the droneship.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/05/third-recovered-falcon-9-first-stage-port-canaveral/
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/05/falcon-9-jcsat-14-launch/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/02/2018 04:39 AM
Quote
Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX’s Vice President for Mission Assurance, said in a press conference before the CRS-5 mission that it would take about one to two hours after a landing for the crew to safe the stage remotely before boarding the drone ship. Remote-controlled safing activities would likely include venting pressurized helium from the fuel tank and venting residual LOX.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/spacex-augments-upgrades-drone-ship-armada/

Which works well if the stage has power, and the antennas are in line of sight and not underwater.

I'm pretty sure Hans meant autonomously, not literally "remote controlled". I highly doubt they would have a human in the loop instead of having the stage pre-programmed to safe itself. If true, the stage should should vent everything as soon as it confirms altitude and velocity are zeroed.

Admittedly a bit OT for this thread, but as the author of the article quoted above, I can confirm that Hans did say it would take 1-2 hours for the crew to approach and "remotely" safe the stage before they could board the ASDS. We did have some debate here as to whether the 1-2 hours was mainly the time needed for GO Quest to get back to the ASDS, or mainly the time needed to safe the stage, or some combination thereof. His statement was admittedly ambiguous.

Having said that, it does now seem likely that the stages do some, possibly all, of the safing automatically. For example, we can see the LOX tank venting immediately after landing, which is undoubtedly automatic. Possibly the venting has always been automatic. But that quote from Hans was early in the recovery program, and it wouldn't suprise me if SpaceX has refined the safing process since then to be more (or all) autonomous, if it wasn't entirely so in the beginning.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Star One on 02/02/2018 05:49 AM
Hmm... no orbital data published

43178SES-16/GOVSAT-12018-013A        PAYLOAD
43179FALCON 9 R/B        2018-013B        ROCKET BODY

As a military communications satellite I’d thought this would be classified.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/02/2018 06:14 AM
Here's a cropped, enlarged and enhanced image of the first stage in the ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 02/02/2018 10:33 AM
It looks like the mouth of the interstage is completely out of the water or very close to it.  That would make towing a lot easier.  Should be easy (and safe) to hook up a line to the same points used to lift the stage with a crane when removing it from the ASDS.  With the mouth out of the water it won't act like a scoop when being towed.  Perhaps put a float bag under the end just to provide a little extra margin.  Towing speed should be reasonable in this configuration and not stress the rocket too badly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Pete on 02/02/2018 02:00 PM
It looks like the mouth of the interstage is completely out of the water or very close to it. 

Actually everything from halfway on the oxygen tank is out of the water.
That there ship is VERY stern-heavy
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/02/2018 02:15 PM
Going by the cadence of the callouts from burn to legs to splashdown, I'm going with the 3 engine suicide burn.  Have they ever landed one of those, yet?  I remember SES-9 punching a nice hole in OCISLY when they tried it then.

AFAIK, they never performed a complete landing using a 3 engine burn, it was at most 3 engines for a portion of the landing burn and then a switch to the "normal", single-engine landing.

I can see clear evidence of three burning just a few meters from the deck.  I can also see clear evidence that the outer two shut down first, but not exactly when that happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHqLz9ni0Bo
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/02/2018 02:25 PM
It looks like the mouth of the interstage is completely out of the water or very close to it. 

Actually everything from halfway on the oxygen tank is out of the water.
That there ship is VERY stern-heavy

As you tow it faster the landing legs will start to lift the tail end and you could bury the nose. Going to be tricky.

On the flip side, if you could get a raft under the interstage you might be able to plane it out on the legs and make good speed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: fthomassy on 02/02/2018 02:26 PM
Here's a cropped, enlarged and enhanced image of the first stage in the ocean.
I wonder if they'll need to do anything with the legs to keep the stage from rotating while towed. Sure the design is symmetric but one can imagine a small twist could produce a large moment. I can think of lots of crazy options but its not worth debating! Just something to look for when it comes to port.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/02/2018 02:31 PM
All actual explosives are installed at the launch site, including the det cord, shape charges and initiators.
For a landed core, are they removed during the refurb process, and then reinstalled again shortly before launch?

If so, this is an area for potential reduction of effort (on the way to gas-n-go) I would think?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: aleponcin on 02/02/2018 03:13 PM
There is a great story posted on the 45th's website about the GovSat-1 launch and the 60th anniversary of launching Explorer I. It's based on Dr. John Meisenheimer who was the  Launch Weather Officer 60 years ago and one more time 60 years later.  :)

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the story:

Launching With A Legacy -- Weather pioneer returns 60 years after historic mission

After suffering three humbling launch setbacks, the U.S. finally had an answer to Sputnik and that answer, nestled atop a Juno rocket, was Explorer I.

The launch business was different back then, everything was being done for the first time like when the pioneers headed out west. But this time, the pioneers were headed north – way north. One of those pioneers was a young Air Force lieutenant, launch weather officer, John Meisenheimer

Fast forward to 60 years later...

Meiseheimer thought he was just getting a launch day tour, but the wing had other plans. They planned to put him to work and gave him an opportunity to call it in one more time on launch day.

Dr. Meisenheimer was handed a headset and given the green light to take over as the mission’s LWO, and give the “go” for weather during the final launch poll for GovSat-1.

Sitting back in the chair, with the 45th Space Wing weather team and his family around him, Dr. Meisenheimer, LWO for America’s first successful satellite mission, said, “LWO has you loud and clear.”

The poll came around and Meiseheimer gave the range a “go” for weather one more time, bringing that day 60 years ago, full circle with this day in 2018.

“Today was a good day,” concluded Meisenheimer.

http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1430590/launching-with-a-legacy-weather-pioneer-returns-60-years-after-historic-mission/






Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/02/2018 03:48 PM
They routinely haul boosters across the country somewhat pressurized, although I'm not sure to what level.  So a pressurized booster can't be that dangerous.

This booster has a lot of liquids and gases (and explosives) that wouldn't be in the boosters getting trucked around the country.

That's interesting. The transport trailers have devices that I beleive keep the stage tanks partially pressurised with inert gas (nitrogen or atmosphere?) so no liquids or gases but I always assumed that the plastic explosive zipcord was put on in Hatwthorne[1], not at the launch pad... so it WOULD have explosives on it during transport. Wrong?

1 - and stayed on forever, across reuses, even?

All actual explosives are installed at the launch site, including the det cord, shape charges and initiators.

Does the F9 still use detonators?  Once AFTS was installed, I thought core 'dispersed' fuel/oxidizer by depressurizing one of the tanks and failing the common bulkhead (like done a McGregor for Dev vehicle).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/02/2018 04:04 PM


Does the F9 still use detonators?  Once AFTS was installed, I thought core 'dispersed' fuel/oxidizer by depressurizing one of the tanks and failing the common bulkhead (like done a McGregor for Dev vehicle).

Yep.  AFTS just is a different way to initiate the explosives.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mulp on 02/02/2018 04:42 PM
Dealing with the floating booster is easily outsourced.

Crowley.com
Marine Salvage, Wreck Removal and Emergency Response
Overview
Ardent is one of the world’s leading maritime services company with an extensive network, offering innovative solutions to the shipping and offshore industries.

In May, 2015, TITAN Salvage, under the Crowley Group, and Svitzer Salvage, a part of the Maersk Group, merged to form Ardent.

Titan Salvage, a leading wreck removal company, among other things known for raising the Costa Concordia, and Svitzer Salvage, a longstanding market leader in emergency response, brought together their strong heritages and expertise to develop one of the most robust service offerings in the worldwide salvage industry.

Resolvemarine.com
Resolve Marine Group provides innovative and reliable maritime solutions across the globe through our dedicated salvage and emergency response resources. We are a family-owned company with international reach and our core businesses are

Salvage & Wreck Removal

Whether it’s a container ship in New Zealand, a cruise ship in the Arctic or a tanker in New York Harbor, Resolve’s successfully tackled some of the most complex salvage operations in the world. Our experienced salvage masters, naval architects, engineers and divers stand ready to assist our clients around the clock. Our clients’ interests are our priority and we’ll work with all stakeholders to ensure operations are completed on time, on budget and most importantly – SAFELY.

Amsisalvage.com

Marine Casualty and Wreck Removal: AMSI's personnel and equipment are on standby 24 hous a day, 7 days a week. In the event of a casualty, AMSI personnel are trained to evaluate and execute the most favorable solution to prevent further damage to the casualty--and the enviroment.

The Princesa casino ship, with 154 passengers plus crew aboard, lost its rudders off Miami and was drifting in 10-foot seas. While other companies were unsuccessful in their efforts to tow the ship back into port, AMSI principals were dispatched and successfully towed the vessel to safety with neither loss of life nor damage to property. We proved once again that we succeed where others simply can't get the job done.
===

I found news of the floating booster in Marine news sites, so I'm sure SpaceX has had multiple calls offering salvage services beyond those they have used to help build their existing vessels. And if SpaceX doesn't have them, salvage companies have flotation bags.

Amronintl.com

Salvage Pontoon Lift Bag - 22,000 lbs (10,000 kg) Lift Capacity
$4,129.60

Specifically designed for use where water depth is a critical factor. The Subsalve Salvage Pontoon Lift Bags are totally-enclosed, cylindrically-shaped lift bags and are perfect for shallow water salvage, reducing the draft of a vessel, or raising an object closer to the surface. Subsalve Salvage Pontoons Lift Bags also prove invaluable in cable and pipeline operations, or where long tows are planned.

Subsalve Salvage Pontoons Lift Bags are available in both standard cylinder shape and elongated tubes. Subsalve Salvage Pontoons Lift Bags pontoon design incorporates a replaceable, heavy-duty nylon webbing lift harness built into the body of the lift bag, and has a safe working ratio of 6:1.The harness arrangement maintains the lift bag in a horizontal position while insuring maximum stability.

===

And SpaceX can't abandon it to be salvaged by China or Russian trawlers which would violate ITAR.

I'm guessing a bunch of people are trying to keep Elon out of dealing with this to prevent him from deciding to start a marine salvage company, maybe using used Merlin engines to power a sky crane to pull ships from the ocean and fly them to land, ie reversing the Mars landing method.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lar on 02/02/2018 04:42 PM
There is a great story posted on the 45th's website about the GovSat-1 launch and the 60th anniversary of launching Explorer I. It's based on Dr. John Meisenheimer who was the  Launch Weather Officer 60 years ago and one more time 60 years later.  :) 

http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1430590/launching-with-a-legacy-weather-pioneer-returns-60-years-after-historic-mission/

I seem to have gotten some onions in my eyes or something. What a great story and a wonderful, thougtful thing to do. The 45th are not your average "sharks"...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Perchlorate on 02/02/2018 04:46 PM
Only sorry I couldn't click the "Like" button 60 times and have them all register....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: xtc on 02/02/2018 09:49 PM
Any eyes on ship locations? I'm very interested in traveling to Jetty Pier to document this regardless of arrival time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Norm38 on 02/03/2018 12:44 AM
If the interstage had a nosecone like the boosters, it could be kept watertight maybe.

Is that useful to FH?  If the boosters did a soft water landing and got towed in?  If everything is made of inconel etc,is salt water as much of a problem?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 02/03/2018 02:39 AM
Any eyes on ship locations? I'm very interested in traveling to Jetty Pier to document this regardless of arrival time.

You might want to keep an eye on this twitter account.

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/959624880269479936
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 02/03/2018 08:34 AM
Only boat not accounted for at this time is GO Searcher...  :-\
Anyone with a Marine Traffic satellite account care to comment on it's location, course, and speed?
Thanks...  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Req on 02/03/2018 08:37 AM
Only boat not accounted for at this time is GO Searcher...  :-\
Anyone with a Marine Traffic satellite account care to comment on it's location, course, and speed?
Thanks...  :)

Quote from: Reddit
[–]robbak
 3 points 2 hours ago*
Go Searcher is still hanging around the area where B0132.2 splashed down, not making any moves toward shore as of the last update. Go Quest is approaching port - just now identified by shore-based AIS - but at far too high a speed for one towing anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 02/03/2018 08:44 AM
Thank You!! @Req

My take on that news is the Stage is still afloat and GO Searcher is just doing "guard duty"...

I wonder what sort of plan SpaceX is hatching to recover the stage?...  ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/03/2018 09:34 AM
I wonder what sort of plan SpaceX is hatching to recover the stage?...  ???

'We'll think about it once FH recovery is done' ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: hamerad on 02/03/2018 11:10 AM
I wonder what sort of plan SpaceX is hatching to recover the stage?...  ???

'We'll think about it once FH recovery is done' ?

Wait until after FH and tow two in for the price of one 😉
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/03/2018 01:56 PM
I wonder what sort of plan SpaceX is hatching to recover the stage?...  ???

Where are the Liberty Star and Freedom Star these days anyway?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/03/2018 02:46 PM
Freedom star is in reserve with the USDOT, Liberty Star is now TV Kings Pointer with the USMMA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/03/2018 11:43 PM
Freedom star is in reserve with the USDOT, Liberty Star is now TV Kings Pointer with the USMMA.
All shuttle specific hardware was removed after SRB recovery was dropped from SLS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Rangertech1 on 02/04/2018 12:04 AM
It will be a difficult task to tow that booster if they attempt it at all. Not as simple as attaching a cable. I doubt it has any cathodic protection either. Those are the sacrificial blocks of metal that corrode in lieu of the hull. In this case the hull is very thin aluminum. If it makes it back, it will look like moths have been chewing on it. Another first for SpaceX. First flown booster done in by electrolysis.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: SLC on 02/04/2018 02:22 AM
Have there been any more pictures of Floaty McFloatface, apart from the original one from Elon?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: penguin44 on 02/04/2018 06:48 AM
Could they use a cargo crane helicopter to fly it to shore?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 02/04/2018 07:02 AM
Could they use a cargo crane helicopter to fly it to shore?
Nope, way too heavy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Pete on 02/04/2018 07:44 AM
Could they use a cargo crane helicopter to fly it to shore?
Nope, way too heavy.

If by "they" you mean SpaceX or the US, no.

If your "they" includes the russian military, sure. The Mi-26 can carry 20 tons easy, with a range of more than 800km.
Fishing something out of the water might be a bit more of a challenge, of course.
And one would presume that SpaceX, the US navy, and many others would have something to say about such an attempt, so...no.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 02/04/2018 07:53 AM
Could they use a cargo crane helicopter to fly it to shore?
Nope, way too heavy.

Agreed... not even close... if still in one piece...  I cited sources...
F9 Stage 1 dry [1] is over weight for even the mighty Mi-26 [4] to budge...  ;)
And the CH-47 [2] and CH-53 [3]?... no way...  :P

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust#Vehicle_specifications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust#Vehicle_specifications)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F))
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53E_Super_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53E) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53E_Super_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53E))
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Specifications_(Mi-26) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Specifications_(Mi-26))
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kaputnik on 02/05/2018 05:44 PM
It will be a difficult task to tow that booster if they attempt it at all. Not as simple as attaching a cable. I doubt it has any cathodic protection either. Those are the sacrificial blocks of metal that corrode in lieu of the hull. In this case the hull is very thin aluminum. If it makes it back, it will look like moths have been chewing on it. Another first for SpaceX. First flown booster done in by electrolysis.


Just to be pedantic, it's anodic protection that is required. And aluminium is actually reasonably tolerant of corrosion. It depends on the exact alloy used, but bare aluminium hulls can last for decades in seawater (I use such a vessel everyday at work).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ziceva on 02/05/2018 08:16 PM
Could they use a cargo crane helicopter to fly it to shore?
Nope, way too heavy.

Agreed... not even close... if still in one piece...  I cited sources...
F9 Stage 1 dry [1] is over weight for even the mighty Mi-26 [4] to budge...  ;)
And the CH-47 [2] and CH-53 [3]?... no way...  :P

[Not that it is in any way realistic to use that (and probably straying offtopic) but ..] The world record for helicopters is 40000 kg (@ a height of more than 2km) ... too bad only prototypes were ever built ... and are by now probably rusted all up .. I am talking about the older cousin of the Mi-26 .. the Mil V-12 ...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: .Scott on 02/06/2018 11:57 AM
Buy it on Craigslist !!

https://spacecoast.craigslist.org/hvo/d/fs-gently-used-orbital-launch/6480376032.html (https://spacecoast.craigslist.org/hvo/d/fs-gently-used-orbital-launch/6480376032.html)

(http://www.sbowden.org/images/F9craigslist.png)

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/06/2018 01:52 PM
Has anyone else noticed that SpaceX still hasn't posted the launch webcast on their youtube page?

Maybe they're just busy right now... can't imagine what that might be... but it still seems a little odd.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 02/06/2018 05:42 PM
And still sitting there.  So no role in FH, apparently.  I guess not terribly surprising there's no fairing recovery attempt this mission.
Elon tweeted out a graphic timeline for the FH flight which included fairing recovery, but it turns out it was an NSF-created graphic. I'm going to stick with "no fairing recovery on FH".

So Go Searcher is done, I guess. I wonder what's going on in the Bahamas?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: symbios on 02/06/2018 06:41 PM
It will be a difficult task to tow that booster if they attempt it at all. Not as simple as attaching a cable. I doubt it has any cathodic protection either. Those are the sacrificial blocks of metal that corrode in lieu of the hull. In this case the hull is very thin aluminum. If it makes it back, it will look like moths have been chewing on it. Another first for SpaceX. First flown booster done in by electrolysis.


Just to be pedantic, it's anodic protection that is required. And aluminium is actually reasonably tolerant of corrosion. It depends on the exact alloy used, but bare aluminium hulls can last for decades in seawater (I use such a vessel everyday at work).

Unless you have an electrical error in which case it can corrode over night... :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/06/2018 06:45 PM
Has anyone else noticed that SpaceX still hasn't posted the launch webcast on their youtube page?

Maybe they're just busy right now... can't imagine what that might be... but it still seems a little odd.
it is there, just unlisted as all livestreams are after they conclude. that is so copyrighted music can be removed before making it public again.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/06/2018 06:46 PM
it is there, just unlisted as all livestreams are after they conclude. that is so copyrighted music can be removed before making it public again.
Right, usually they make it public within an hour or so of mission completion, so it's just a little weird.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/06/2018 06:54 PM
it is there, just unlisted as all livestreams are after they conclude. that is so copyrighted music can be removed before making it public again.
Right, usually they make it public within an hour or so of mission completion, so it's just a little weird.
It is still viewable in unlisted mode with the edits made but they forgot to relist after the edit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScYUA51-POQ
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: OxCartMark on 02/07/2018 07:00 PM
So what's the news with the hauling backing of the splashdowned core?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/08/2018 12:17 PM
Allegedly, it's been sunk by Uncle Sam!

Quote
Whatever the case, trusted anonymous sources have confirmed to AmericaSpace that the U.S. Air Force carried out an air strike to blow up the floating booster.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/

The term 'trusted anonymous source' always makes me twitch. Personally, I'll wait until someone is willing to go officially on the record about this.

IMHO, it would be more reasonable for divers working for private salvage engineers to blow holes in the tanks with small charges to flood them and cause the core to sink, if that's the direction that SpaceX chose to go.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: su27k on 02/08/2018 12:57 PM
Allegedly, it's been sunk by Uncle Sam!

Quote
Whatever the case, trusted anonymous sources have confirmed to AmericaSpace that the U.S. Air Force carried out an air strike to blow up the floating booster.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/

The term 'trusted anonymous source' always makes me twitch. Personally, I'll wait until someone is willing to go officially on the record about this.

IMHO, it would be more reasonable for divers working for private salvage engineers to blow holes in the tanks with small charges to flood them and cause the core to sink, if that's the direction that SpaceX chose to go.

Yeah, that's insane, I had to check if I was in the party thread. But on the other hand using weapons make sense if they were not able to safe the booster, you don't want COPV to accidentally blow up while divers are around the core.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ClayJar on 02/08/2018 01:25 PM
Whether it was an air strike or whatever, I suppose the circumstances work out for sinking it.  The boat out from the Bahamas likely would have had the people and gear they'd need to recover the hard copies stored on the stage (SD cards in the cameras or whatever).  Abandoning the stage to the deep would be consistent with the speeds we saw as everyone sailed home (i.e. faster than you'd expect to see a legged F9 being towed).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/08/2018 01:28 PM
Yeah, that's insane, I had to check if I was in the party thread. But on the other hand using weapons make sense if they were not able to safe the booster, you don't want COPV to accidentally blow up while divers are around the core.
It might also make for good video, which can't be discounted as a motive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Demidrol on 02/08/2018 01:35 PM
Allegedly, it's been sunk by Uncle Sam!

Quote
Whatever the case, trusted anonymous sources have confirmed to AmericaSpace that the U.S. Air Force carried out an air strike to blow up the floating booster.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/

The term 'trusted anonymous source' always makes me twitch. Personally, I'll wait until someone is willing to go officially on the record about this.
I shouldn't have posted that? It didn't seem so insane to me. Uncontrolled stage is very dangerous in inappropriate conditions. Or no?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Mongo62 on 02/08/2018 01:59 PM
Quote
Whatever the case, trusted anonymous sources have confirmed to AmericaSpace that the U.S. Air Force carried out an air strike to blow up the floating booster.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/

Color me skeptical until there is some independent verification of this story, from named sources.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RonM on 02/08/2018 02:07 PM


Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jet Black on 02/08/2018 02:27 PM

Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

it's more than a hazard to navigation though, it is a floating opportunity to get around ITAR restrictions, and so has military implications.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: curtquarquesso on 02/08/2018 02:43 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: SWGlassPit on 02/08/2018 03:05 PM

Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

On the other hand, if it fulfills a training objective that they were going to have to do anyway to maintain proficiency, why not?  If you have to fire a missile, and you have a choice for it to do something useful or not, you might as well make it useful.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: somepitch on 02/08/2018 03:10 PM
Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

On the other hand, if it fulfills a training objective that they were going to have to do anyway to maintain proficiency, why not?  If you have to fire a missile, and you have a choice for it to do something useful or not, you might as well make it useful.

This. Plus if there's no USCG vessel close by it's the cost of an the ship, crew, and fuel for however long it takes to reach the booster instead of likely <1 hr for a pilot/plane there and back. Ships are slow.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: pb2000 on 02/08/2018 03:12 PM
Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.
Except it would sink intact, or worse yet actually blow up and rain shrapnel on the coast guard boat. On that note though, lets hope the airforce found a rusty old  bomb to drop instead of some quarter million* $ gps guided gadget.

*random cost guesstimate
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RonM on 02/08/2018 03:31 PM
An airstrike would be effective, but expensive. Of course, that would be the way the US government operates. Choose the most expensive option available.  ::)

Coast Guard cutters could use .50 BMG, 20mm, or even 57mm depending on the standoff distance required for safety.

Coast Guard assets are deployed in the area, so no extra cost to send one over.

Coast Guard personnel need training too. Air Force has been evolved in combat operations for the past 16 years.

Once again, no love for the Coasties.  ;)

And this discussion should move to https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36807.msg1785788;topicseen#new

Edit: link to the discussion thread instead of update.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/08/2018 03:35 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?

Presumably, someone with access to missiles or large bore deck guns. Don't want to get too close in case of a RUD.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RonM on 02/08/2018 03:38 PM
A Coast Guard cutter firing deck guns would have been a better and cheaper option.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/08/2018 03:41 PM
A Coast Guard cutter firing deck guns would have been a better and cheaper option.

If it were close enough. Ships are slow  and use a lot of fuel, planes already scheduled to be on a training flight are faster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: RonM on 02/08/2018 03:48 PM
An airstrike would be effective, but expensive. Of course, that would be the way the US government operates. Choose the most expensive option available.  ::)

Coast Guard cutters could use .50 BMG, 20mm, or even 57mm depending on the standoff distance required for safety. From what we've seen in failed booster landings, use the biggest deck gun available.

Coast Guard assets are deployed in the area, so no extra cost to send one over.

Coast Guard personnel need training too. Air Force has been evolved in combat operations for the past 16 years.

Once again, no love for the Coasties.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/08/2018 03:54 PM
Memory is hazy, but I do recall that a first stage from a Gemini-Titan II launch was found floating downrange, and had to be sunk by naval gunfire as a hazard to navigation.

This photo may be of a different GTII mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 02/08/2018 03:56 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Does the Range Officer pressing the FTS terminate button count as the "Air Force carrying out a strike"?

Assuming the AFTS has a manual terminate option, and that it works over the horizon via relay or something.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: JamesH65 on 02/08/2018 04:07 PM
An airstrike would be effective, but expensive. Of course, that would be the way the US government operates. Choose the most expensive option available.  ::)

No more expensive that any practice run that airforces do all the time.  In fact, this could have saved them money since they didn't have to shoot something they had the launch in the first place. Good target practice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: jgoldader on 02/08/2018 04:09 PM
Not sure the AFTS battery and electronics would be good after several days in the salt water.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Tomness on 02/08/2018 04:10 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Range Safety... ITAR we will take it out! That's awesome
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 02/08/2018 04:12 PM
Not sure the AFTS battery and electronics would be good after several days in the salt water.

Do we know that it spent several days in the water? They might have decided to pop it a few minutes after the support boats checked it out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/08/2018 04:26 PM
A Coast Guard cutter firing deck guns would have been a better and cheaper option.

If the AF or Navy need to excercise anyway, it doesn’t really cost anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/08/2018 04:47 PM
I would bet a strafing run with the 20mm cannon most Air Force tactical combat aircraft are equipped with would do the job easily and relatively inexpensively, and would still qualify as an “air strike.”
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ppb on 02/08/2018 05:06 PM
I would bet a strafing run with the 20mm cannon most Air Force tactical combat aircraft are equipped with would do the job easily and relatively inexpensively, and would still qualify as an “air strike.”
Would have to get pretty low for a strafing run. Seems a risk of frag damage.  A JDAM, Hellfire or some other standoff guided missile would be a safer, albeit more expensive option.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/08/2018 05:16 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Flying Beaver on 02/08/2018 05:38 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

Executed as in with a F/A-18 and a anti-shipping missile  8).

Well at least the US Military can now claim a successful intercept of missile threatening the US mainland.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mn on 02/08/2018 05:43 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

So how in the world does a private company request that the USAF blow something up?

How would such a mission be requested and authorized?

Perhaps it's included in the range safety package?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: IanH84 on 02/08/2018 05:53 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

So how in the world does a private company request that the USAF blow something up?

How would such a mission be requested and authorized?

Perhaps it's included in the range safety package?
Just fax in the form and hope nobody notices you're not the military
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23/appc.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/08/2018 05:54 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

So how in the world does a private company request that the USAF blow something up?

How would such a mission be requested and authorized?

Perhaps it's included in the range safety package?
... because a company that does major rocket launches is not just "A" private company...

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/08/2018 05:57 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Does the Range Officer pressing the FTS terminate button count as the "Air Force carrying out a strike"?

Assuming the AFTS has a manual terminate option, and that it works over the horizon via relay or something.

there is no manual option
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/08/2018 05:58 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

So how in the world does a private company request that the USAF blow something up?

How would such a mission be requested and authorized?

Perhaps it's included in the range safety package?
... because a company that does major rocket launches is not just "A" private company...
Exactly. Not sure why people are surprised about using the military for this. I mean, the Falcon 9 is ITAR protected, certified for military launches, launches out of an Air Force base, is loaded with explosive munitions, and is an amazing training target. And for those saying there are cheaper options - that's not even a a blip on the radar of military expenditures...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/08/2018 05:59 PM
I would bet a strafing run with the 20mm cannon most Air Force tactical combat aircraft are equipped with would do the job easily and relatively inexpensively, and would still qualify as an “air strike.”
Would have to get pretty low for a strafing run. Seems a risk of frag damage.  A JDAM, Hellfire or some other standoff guided missile would be a safer, albeit more expensive option.

No, it is going to be guns and not missile or bomb.  And no, there is no risk of frag damage, what you do think they are shooting at on a battlefield? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/08/2018 06:00 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

So how in the world does a private company request that the USAF blow something up?

How would such a mission be requested and authorized?


Through their Range/45th Space Wing contacts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/08/2018 06:00 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

So how in the world does a private company request that the USAF blow something up?

How would such a mission be requested and authorized?

Perhaps it's included in the range safety package?
... because a company that does major rocket launches is not just "A" private company...
Exactly. Not sure why people are surprised about using the military for this. I mean, the Falcon 9 is ITAR protected, certified for military launches, launches out of an Air Force base, is loaded with explosive munitions, and is an amazing training target. And for those saying there are cheaper options - that's not even a a blip on the radar of military expenditures...
Heh you know the outfit that got to do the job is considering it a prize, not a burden...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: JBF on 02/08/2018 06:10 PM
We now have to hunt for the fighter with a F9 silhouette on it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/08/2018 06:12 PM
Exactly. Not sure why people are surprised about using the military for this. I mean, the Falcon 9 is ITAR protected, certified for military launches, launches out of an Air Force base, is loaded with explosive munitions, and is an amazing training target. And for those saying there are cheaper options - that's not even a a blip on the radar of military expenditures...
Heh you know the outfit that got to do the job is considering it a prize, not a burden...
Exactly!  What a great day for the pilot!  First watch a successful launch of a new rocket, then you get to go out, fly your plane, and use your missile to blow up something for real.  Like birthday and Chrismas combined!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mn on 02/08/2018 06:20 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

So how in the world does a private company request that the USAF blow something up?

How would such a mission be requested and authorized?

Perhaps it's included in the range safety package?
... because a company that does major rocket launches is not just "A" private company...

I understand that, but everything in the military must have strict rules and procedures, just because it makes sense I would expect that it still needs to fit into some established procedure/rule. (Try billing insurance without a proper ICD.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: drnscr on 02/08/2018 06:50 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?
SpaceX issued a request and USAF executed that request. Period end of discussion.

Executed as in with a F/A-18 and a anti-shipping missile  8).

Well at least the US Military can now claim a successful intercept of missile threatening the US mainland.

Air Force doesn’t use F/A-18
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: drnscr on 02/08/2018 06:52 PM
IMHO an A-10 sortie would do the trick just fine.  Don’t believe me?  Ask an Iraqi tank crew if you can find one alive. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/08/2018 06:54 PM
SpaceTrack has not released the transfer orbit, presumably since this is a military mission.  However, using data from the Webcast, we can make a reasonable guess.

From the webcast, we know the delta-V from the parking to transfer orbit was 2636 m/s (26489 km/hr at beginning, 35980 at end).

Next, using the final velocity, then adding in the roughly 400 m/s for the Cape's eastward rotation (we know this is not included, since the velocity is 0 at takeoff) we can figure an apogee of 52000 km.

Now, using the delta-V from parking orbit, we can find the inclination.  As it turns out, they need all 2636 m/s to get from a 250x250 parking orbit to 250x52000.   If they used any of the delta-V for inclination reduction, the final absolute velocity, and the perigee, would be lower.   For example, if they reduced the inclination to 24o (which would actually be slightly helpful) then the apogee would be lower at 44,000 km, and the final velocity would be 85 km/sec less than shown on the webcast.

So it seems very likely the transfer orbit was 250 x 52000 x 27o, leaving about 1690 m/s to go to GEO.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: envy887 on 02/08/2018 07:01 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Does the Range Officer pressing the FTS terminate button count as the "Air Force carrying out a strike"?

Assuming the AFTS has a manual terminate option, and that it works over the horizon via relay or something.

there is no manual option

What does the range do then, once it launches? What's the point of tracking it if they can't terminate?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/08/2018 07:24 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Does the Range Officer pressing the FTS terminate button count as the "Air Force carrying out a strike"?

Assuming the AFTS has a manual terminate option, and that it works over the horizon via relay or something.

there is no manual option

What does the range do then, once it launches? What's the point of tracking it if they can't terminate?

They operate the range equipment - tracking cameras, radars, telemetry receivers, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/08/2018 07:24 PM
Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Does the Range Officer pressing the FTS terminate button count as the "Air Force carrying out a strike"?

Assuming the AFTS has a manual terminate option, and that it works over the horizon via relay or something.

there is no manual option

What does the range do then, once it launches? What's the point of tracking it if they can't terminate?

Sea and airspace clearance, Telemetry receiving, launch danger area road blocks, comm, weather, etc
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/08/2018 07:46 PM
We now have to hunt for the fighter with a F9 silhouette on it.

Or FOIA for the gun-cam.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/08/2018 08:11 PM
We now have to hunt for the fighter with a F9 silhouette on it.

Not necessary. A jet fighter is not the ideal tool for the job.

My money is on a Spec Ops AC-130 gunship at night. Look for the F9 silhouette on a Spooky.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/08/2018 08:15 PM
IMHO an A-10 sortie would do the trick just fine.  Don’t believe me?  Ask an Iraqi tank crew if you can find one alive.

Not likely. The A-10 is not design for maritime missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ppb on 02/08/2018 08:57 PM
I would bet a strafing run with the 20mm cannon most Air Force tactical combat aircraft are equipped with would do the job easily and relatively inexpensively, and would still qualify as an “air strike.”
Would have to get pretty low for a strafing run. Seems a risk of frag damage.  A JDAM, Hellfire or some other standoff guided missile would be a safer, albeit more expensive option.

No, it is going to be guns and not missile or bomb.  And no, there is no risk of frag damage, what you do think they are shooting at on a battlefield?
So those exploding boosters on the deck of the ASDS would have posed no risk to low overflying aircraft. OK, if you say so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: drnscr on 02/08/2018 08:57 PM
IMHO an A-10 sortie would do the trick just fine.  Don’t believe me?  Ask an Iraqi tank crew if you can find one alive.

Not likely. The A-10 is not design for maritime missions.

A former A-10 pilot friend of mine would beg to differ.  But, in the big picture scheme of things, it doesn’t matter.

Feel the BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTT
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/08/2018 09:10 PM
Likely used helicopter, not fixed wing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ugordan on 02/08/2018 09:11 PM
This thread has really taken a strange turn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Nehkara on 02/08/2018 09:58 PM
SpaceX finally just put up the video for the launch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScYUA51-POQ
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/08/2018 10:08 PM
Or FOIA for the gun-cam.

I wonder how far away the workboats had to be? They may have footage from a distance.

Matthew
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/08/2018 10:10 PM
What does the range do then, once it launches? What's the point of tracking it if they can't terminate?
Flipping it around, what's the point of AFTS if the range has to be responsible for it still?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Paul_G on 02/08/2018 10:36 PM
What does the range do then, once it launches? What's the point of tracking it if they can't terminate?
Flipping it around, what's the point of AFTS if the range has to be responsible for it still?

But the AFTS was 'safed' during landing. Can it be 'unsafed' - especially once it is bobbing around in the sea? You obviously want the safing process to be reliable, and not want the risk of it triggering unintentionally, so once it is 'saved' it is probably safe for good.

Paul
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: mn on 02/08/2018 10:43 PM
What does the range do then, once it launches? What's the point of tracking it if they can't terminate?
Flipping it around, what's the point of AFTS if the range has to be responsible for it still?

Regardless of whether that was possible here (certainly not possible), but as to your question: I would have assumed that AFTS still allowed the range to manually trigger a destruct (in addition to the automatic function). so Jim's assertion that there is no manual control is a surprise to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 02/09/2018 12:13 AM
I would think the Coast Guard will take care of it. Just tell a Skipper it’s full of drugs, make it go away.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: macpacheco on 02/09/2018 12:31 AM
I doubt that the Air Force can just shoot at something on behalf of a commercial company, especially in a shipping lane, etc.  The Navy has a testing range off the west coast of Florida, where any such live-fire exercise event is tightly controlled.

On the other hand, which DoD entity is in charge of clearing the shipping lanes of hazards?  Could this be a Coast Guard matter?  Then again, since it is in international waters, maybe no one is really in charge.

I could be wrong.

 - Ed Kyle
The military must operate in due regard to others. Shipping lanes aren't civilian only zones. Its not like dropping a bomb on a freeway. That would be big trouble.
You can blow things in the Ocean surface safety as long as there's no civilian traffic within 10nm or so. And 10nm is a big safety margin. Any tactical fighter has radar capable of distinguishing anything larger than a tiny buoy from ocean. An F16 carrying just 2 500lb bombs is very nimble and able to look around doing 4g turns at low altitude. The dumb bomb is actually quite cheap, but the F16 per hour costs a lot...

The cheapest solution would be SpaceX drags it as near as it safely can to the coast. The NAVY sends one of those little rubber boats with a mini gun. Cheap fuel, cheap ammo. The kind of boat that destroyers carry a bunch of.

But if you really care about ITAR, you don't just want to sink it. You want to blow it to as many pieces as you can. Make the wreckage in the bottom truly useless. Typically uncontrolled re-entry takes care of that and then some. So either use a cannon that has an explosive shell, stick some explosives to the stage or actually drop a bomb on it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: sewebster on 02/09/2018 12:45 AM
So... do they go looking for any booster they soft land in the water, just in case? Or are they close enough in the ships to see the explosions or lack thereof?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: aero on 02/09/2018 12:52 AM
Wouldn't it still have had oxygen in the lox tank? I can't guess how explosive the RP1 and oxygen mixture would have been, I guess it depends on whether or not the lox was vented after touchdown. Anyway, what's the chance of setting it off with just a few explosive shells? Of course with those guns, it's hard to fire just a few rounds. And under the circumstances, what pilot would stop at just a few?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: John Alan on 02/09/2018 12:58 AM
So... do they go looking for any booster they soft land in the water, just in case? Or are they close enough in the ships to see the explosions or lack thereof?

My guess is they are done soft landing stages... all done on that...
You may have noticed the side boosters on the FH used a new 1-3-1 RTLS landing burn Tuesday...
My guess is they have made GovSat's landing burn the standard going forward... for all landings... 
Saves Prop... and Govsat proved it worked... so it's standard now... my opinion...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/09/2018 01:14 AM
So... do they go looking for any booster they soft land in the water, just in case? Or are they close enough in the ships to see the explosions or lack thereof?

There are high bandwidth telemetry feeds that need line-of-sight to receive them, and recover all the expected data.
This is done from a boat, which happens to be in position to see any impact too, and gain a little extra info, as well as recover any floating debris - it is usual for the helium tanks to float, for example. The fairing may also in some cases come down moderately close and be fishable out in bits.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Pete on 02/09/2018 07:39 AM
Wouldn't it still have had oxygen in the lox tank? I can't guess how explosive the RP1 and oxygen mixture would have been, I guess it depends on whether or not the lox was vented after touchdown. Anyway, what's the chance of setting it off with just a few explosive shells? Of course with those guns, it's hard to fire just a few rounds. And under the circumstances, what pilot would stop at just a few?

Actually oxygen and RP1 is not explosive at all, just very very very flammable.
But within an hour of landing in the water, that booster would have had not one drop of LOX remaining in it, the rate of heat absorption from warm ocean water through aluminum shell would be orders of magnitudes higher than heat absorption through the same skin in vacuum, or even in air (where it develops a nice insulating jacket of frost)

The problem is that if it retains significant pressure in the oxygen tank, it could pop with significant force if it does fail, and if it does *not* retain significant pressure in the tank, then it has very poor structural integrity as the falcon derives a lot of its structural strength from internal pressure. Lose-lose situation.
The falcon 9 first stage is not designed to be towed around in the ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: georgegassaway on 02/09/2018 07:51 AM
My take on the financial cost for the USAF to sink it, is it may have been a wash, so to speak. Plenty of training missions, flying all the time. Usually with fake bombs/missiles, but also live sometimes. Live fire exercises often over the same fixed target ranges. 

This time, a unique opportunity to take out a ship-sized target at sea (albeit a relatively skinny ratio for a lot of ships). 

I mean, for a planned practice mission to take out a real target at sea, would involve the cost to tow it out, and whatever the value of the target might be (whether built-for-purpose targets. Or  ship hulks that do have a scrap metal value that is lost - if they even still sink old ships just for practice), and likely other costs. So they were presented with a “free target” to practice destroying, a unique real mission which also was  necessary and served a useful purpose in carrying it out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vanoord on 02/09/2018 12:19 PM
Agree with that.

The chance of a 'free' target to take out in a live-fire exercise was probably welcomed.

What will be interesting will be whether or not SpaceX try to 'soft land' any more cores - if they do so, presumably it will be in the knowledge that the USAF would be willing to finish them off if they do survive again.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 02/09/2018 12:27 PM
What will be interesting will be whether or not SpaceX try to 'soft land' any more cores - if they do so, presumably it will be in the knowledge that the USAF would be willing to finish them off if they do survive again.

SpaceX may also decide to add in a scuttling option to the stage.  Should really be just some valves that can be opened to flood the tank hooked to a receiver and an independent power source.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vanoord on 02/09/2018 12:34 PM
SpaceX may also decide to add in a scuttling option to the stage.  Should really be just some valves that can be opened to flood the tank hooked to a receiver and an independent power source.

The trouble with that is that it's not required for missions; and that it introduces a possible failure mode (however remotely unlikely).

As long as there's the option to finish a stage off with remotely delivered ordnance, there's no effect on the probabilities of launch success.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: sevenperforce on 02/09/2018 12:43 PM
SpaceX may also decide to add in a scuttling option to the stage.  Should really be just some valves that can be opened to flood the tank hooked to a receiver and an independent power source.

The trouble with that is that it's not required for missions; and that it introduces a possible failure mode (however remotely unlikely).

As long as there's the option to finish a stage off with remotely delivered ordnance, there's no effect on the probabilities of launch success.
"Remotely Delivered Ordnance" is a euphemism for "airstrike" on a level with "Rapid Unplanned Disassembly".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/09/2018 01:37 PM
What will be interesting will be whether or not SpaceX try to 'soft land' any more cores
The easy answer is they can practice soft landing at an offset, say 100 feet up.  They still can practice hitting that spot, and there's no chance the stage survives the fall after engine cut-off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: biosehnsucht on 02/09/2018 08:01 PM
Alternatively, just don't disable AFTS and instead program it to activate before splashdown.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/09/2018 09:09 PM
A high powered rifle or two on the support ship from now on if another scuttling is required.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 02/09/2018 09:11 PM
A high powered rifle or two on the support ship from now on if another scuttling is required.

Never trust engineers with firearms - especially Californians ;)

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 02/09/2018 09:41 PM
No... what you have here is an amateur who reports an anonymous source without waiting for confirmation vs a professional who waits for confirmation and is now reporting the denial.

One would hope that the amateur will go back to his anonymous source and ask wtf, but I doubt he will.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: saliva_sweet on 02/09/2018 09:53 PM
One would hope that the amateur will go back to his anonymous source and ask wtf, but I doubt he will.

There were two: Mike Killian and Chris Gerbhart. I'd hope to see clarification from both, as both appear to be reputable. Amateur or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/09/2018 10:25 PM
A high powered rifle or two on the support ship from now on if another scuttling is required.

It worked to ‘remotely vent’ an early Viking at White Sands.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 02/09/2018 10:27 PM
One would hope that the amateur will go back to his anonymous source and ask wtf, but I doubt he will.

There were two: Mike Killian and Chris Gerbhart. I'd hope to see clarification from both, as both appear to be reputable. Amateur or not.

Chris G can answer here for himself :)

That's one of the risks of getting information from anonymous sources, they tend to say stuff like "that's what I heard".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/10/2018 04:35 AM
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/962089727871643649

Quote
Full SpaceX statement on #GovSat1: “While the Falcon 9 first stage for the GovSat-1 mission was expendable, it initially survived splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean. However, the stage broke apart before we could complete an unplanned recovery effort for this mission.”

I wonder what caused the breakup. It could be excessive saltwater corrosion to the point where the COPVs overreacted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: eeergo on 02/10/2018 04:46 AM
I wonder what caused the breakup. It could be excessive saltwater corrosion to the point where the COPVs overreacted.

Likely just mechanical fatigue from bobbing in the waves for a prolonged period of time, maybe exacerbated by slowly flooding compartments unevenly adding weight to some parts of the stage. COPVs should be pretty inert mechanically.

Note AmericaSpace is insistently reporting it was intentionally destroyed (as opposed to "broken apart", which suggests a natural cause), not by the USAF but by a private demolition contractor. Not that I attach any particular credibility to this based on their previous track record.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: AC in NC on 02/10/2018 05:02 AM
SpaceX may also decide to add in a scuttling option to the stage.  Should really be just some valves that can be opened to flood the tank hooked to a receiver and an independent power source.

Automatic Float Termination System
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CJ on 02/10/2018 05:07 AM
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/962089727871643649

Quote
Full SpaceX statement on #GovSat1: “While the Falcon 9 first stage for the GovSat-1 mission was expendable, it initially survived splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean. However, the stage broke apart before we could complete an unplanned recovery effort for this mission.”

I wonder what caused the breakup. It could be excessive saltwater corrosion to the point where the COPVs overreacted.

An exacerbating factor may well be structural damage incurred during splashdown and subsequent toppling.
Title: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/10/2018 06:00 AM
Yep, it was not going to stay floating long if no floatation aids were attached. The wave action on such a long structure would keep bending it until it started leaking or breaking up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: vanoord on 02/10/2018 08:58 AM
What will be interesting will be whether or not SpaceX try to 'soft land' any more cores
The easy answer is they can practice soft landing at an offset, say 100 feet up.  They still can practice hitting that spot, and there's no chance the stage survives the fall after engine cut-off.

That would seem to be an option - but from a point of view of not creating code that could lead to rearrangement of the ASDS if it were accidentally duplicated for a real landing (worse errors have occurred in spaceflight), surely better to run tests with landing level set as landing level and just work out a contingency for finishing off stages that for some reason do survive?

The best way to sell it to Elon would be to tell him that the Boring Company need to sell torpedos... 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: cscott on 02/10/2018 12:51 PM
SpaceX Hired Company to Destroy Floating GovSat Booster, Not USAF
http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/09/spacex-hired-company-to-destroy-floating-govsat-booster-not-usaf/
Quote
AmericaSpace has since learned that the Air Force was, instead, initially considered to take care of the job, but a commercial company of demolition specialists was eventually hired to safely destroy the hazardous booster.

Again, not the USAF; no strike by the U.S. military was carried out on the Falcon 9.

We tracked a US-flagged tender named Manisee out from the Bahamas which met up with Go Searcher at sea. It is now tied up next to http://www.kairosmaritime.com/ -- I'm guessing they were the commercial company (although they probably contracted out the actual scuttling experts).

Manisee could also have ferried out fuel or engine repair supplies; there was a rumor that Go Searcher had to return before the FH launch due to engine trouble.

Update on Go Searcher - After the rendezvous with the other ship it has been making a normal 7 knots toward Port Canaveral.

Edit: The tug Manisee appears to have met up with Go Searcher and is arriving near Marsh Harbor now at 7.5 knots.  Does 7.5 knots seem too fast for a successful recovery?

https://twitter.com/CowboyDanPaasch/status/960663935962755072

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:442006/zoom:10
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/10/2018 08:19 PM
That would seem to be an option - but from a point of view of not creating code that could lead to rearrangement of the ASDS if it were accidentally duplicated for a real landing (worse errors have occurred in spaceflight), surely better to run tests with landing level set as landing level and just work out a contingency for finishing off stages that for some reason do survive?
They have to program in the correct landing coordinates every launch.  The possibility that the x/y get set wrong seems higher to me than someone sets the height wrong, as the latter would be far easier to notice...

YMMV.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 02/11/2018 04:56 PM
SpaceX may also decide to add in a scuttling option to the stage.  Should really be just some valves that can be opened to flood the tank hooked to a receiver and an independent power source.

That just adds complexity, expense and another potential point of failure - you don't want the scuttling valves to open at an inappropriate time! - for something that is likely to be a rare event that can be dealt with easily enough anyway.