At least one of the sats needed full performance, so it was planned to go legless. But there has been enough core swapping... with that legless given to one that could use it but now has no legs.. it's a muddle. I think they left them off all 3 just to keep things straight.I'm still wondering what internals are changed, as we discussed a few pages back, if all 3 legless now have less internal wiring or plumbing or if they kept that part the same.
Quote from: Lar on 07/20/2014 04:10 amAt least one of the sats needed full performance, so it was planned to go legless. But there has been enough core swapping... with that legless given to one that could use it but now has no legs.. it's a muddle. I think they left them off all 3 just to keep things straight.I'm still wondering what internals are changed, as we discussed a few pages back, if all 3 legless now have less internal wiring or plumbing or if they kept that part the same.What I do not understand: Asiasat-6 was supposed to be light enough to for landing. CSR-4 too? Swapping would still give then both legs, or did I miss something?It sounds like a serious waste of testing potential to leave them legless. Or might they still attempt a landing, but without legs?Maybe questions for Chris? Maybe L2 type info?
Quote from: Jakusb on 07/20/2014 05:38 amQuote from: Lar on 07/20/2014 04:10 amAt least one of the sats needed full performance, so it was planned to go legless. But there has been enough core swapping... with that legless given to one that could use it but now has no legs.. it's a muddle. I think they left them off all 3 just to keep things straight.I'm still wondering what internals are changed, as we discussed a few pages back, if all 3 legless now have less internal wiring or plumbing or if they kept that part the same.What I do not understand: Asiasat-6 was supposed to be light enough to for landing. CSR-4 too? Swapping would still give then both legs, or did I miss something?It sounds like a serious waste of testing potential to leave them legless. Or might they still attempt a landing, but without legs?Maybe questions for Chris? Maybe L2 type info?I suspect it's a combination of swapping cores and trying to make up for lost time. No legs on Asiasat-6 because they are going for launch in record time (for SpaceX). No legs on Asiasat-8 as it's too massive, but it's using the core meant for CRS-4 (and probably another attempt at a 20ish day launch.) Then no legs on CRS-4 because it's now a on core without the proper mount points (presumably the original AsiaSat-8 core.)Completely made up, but plausible.
I don't think that lack of legs necessarily blocks them from doing a boost back and close-to-shore splashdown. Perhaps on - 6 & CRS.
QuoteI don't think that lack of legs necessarily blocks them from doing a boost back and close-to-shore splashdown. Perhaps on - 6 & CRS. That is a great point. It's not as though the legs helped soften those (Kabooms). They might have better luck with booster survivability by just splashing a bit closer to shore.
Quote from: stichtom on 07/18/2014 06:05 pmThe next three flights won't have legs. Even CRS-4 won't because that core is now being used for Asiasat 6.Why sweeping the cores causes CRS-4 to not have legs? are not the cores all identical?
The next three flights won't have legs. Even CRS-4 won't because that core is now being used for Asiasat 6.
Quote from: luinil on 07/20/2014 03:54 amQuote from: stichtom on 07/18/2014 06:05 pmThe next three flights won't have legs. Even CRS-4 won't because that core is now being used for Asiasat 6.Why sweeping the cores causes CRS-4 to not have legs? are not the cores all identical?They are not identical, they have some minor differences
We are off-topic with this swapping situation between CRS4 and AsiaSat6.A new topic would be a better place for it.Back to AsiaSat8: is it a fact that the core is without legs or only opinions because the satellite needs full performance of the rocket?
So, would it be fair to say that Asiasat-8 is at the top end of Falcon-9 v.1.1's payload to GTO performance envelope? That makes it about 4,000kg, doesn't it?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 07/20/2014 03:23 pmSo, would it be fair to say that Asiasat-8 is at the top end of Falcon-9 v.1.1's payload to GTO performance envelope? That makes it about 4,000kg, doesn't it?SES-10 weighs 5,300 kg and will be launch aboard a Falcon 9 in 2016.