SpaceX Falcon 9 : Formosat-5 : SLC-4E Vandenberg : Aug 24, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[RedLineTrain]

SpaceX's great year continues, looking good to have the most launches of any launch provider globally this year.

China expects about 30 launches.

Q:  How many launches are you planning for this year?

A:  Around 30; China has a lot of domestic launch needs. For example, the Beidou navigation constellation is still at the deployment stage to become a global system by 2020. Also, there are some Chinese domestic programs for Earth observation, weather satellites, and also human exploration and deep space exploration programs. All these areas are requiring a significant number of launches. Last year we were on par with the U.S. for 22 launches. I think this year we might be No. 1 in terms of launches. (Editor’s note: this interview was conducted before the July 2 failure of China’s Long March 5 rocket.)

http://spacenews.com/back-to-back-commercial-satellite-wins-leave-china-great-wall-hungry-for-more/

[abaddon]

My post wasn't suggesting an either/or.  I agree that a longer entry burn was required.  However, I think we can also agree that it wasn't a "hot re-entry" like we've seen on some more aggressive GTO profiles.  With the margin available it'd make sense to use it to provide as gentle a re-entry as possible with an eye towards future reuse.

[rpapo]

My post wasn't suggesting an either/or.  I agree that a longer entry burn was required.  However, I think we can also agree that it wasn't a "hot re-entry" like we've seen on some more aggressive GTO profiles.  With the margin available it'd make sense to use it to provide as gentle a re-entry as possible with an eye towards future reuse.

Agreed.  When they can, they should.  Waste some fuel to gravity losses, that is.  It's easier on the equipment, as they have discovered.  And landing with too much fuel on board is not a good idea.

[abaddon]

China expects about 30 launches.

They have had eight (one failed) so far this year, so yeah... no.

[RedLineTrain]

China expects about 30 launches.

They have had eight (one failed) so far this year, so yeah... no.

In 2015 at this point, China Great Wall had only three launches.  Went on to launch 19 for the year.

[abaddon]

In 2015 at this point, China Great Wall had only three launches.  Went on to launch 19 for the year.

24 is still well short of 30 (although more than SpaceX will do).

We'll see.

[kdhilliard]

I did not check the archives, just by what I remember about this story:

#1 - I do not agree. Here is my recollection: as of beginning of 2016, this flight was planned as Formosat-5 WITH co-passenger, Sherpa (with about 80 nano-satellites). Later in the year, Sherpa withdraw from this flight BECAUSE of delays, they had a number of customers who could not wait. IIRC(*), this happened before the AMOS-6 explosion. But even if it happened after - it has nothing to do with F1e cancellation, all this happened in 2016, and F1e was canceled (shelved) in 2009 (again - IIRC).
Bottom-line for your #1 - this *overkill* (the payload being 5-7 times lighter then actual F9FT performance for this type of orbit) was caused by a canceled RIDESHARE (not by old story with F1e), it happened sometime last year, and this ride-share cancellation was indeed caused by launch delays.
* - The best way to check the facts here is to look through last year press-releases by Spaceflight Industries.

#2 - " the satellite isn't even ready until early 2016"
- correct.
However, the *satellite was ready early 2016* and *satellite was launched in Aug 2017* - these two statements are perfectly consistent with "thanks to a years-long delay" from the article.

Another way to reconstruct this story with Sherpa rescheduling is to look through "US launch schedule" thread.

edit: corrected typos.

Our William Graham feature article, Falcon 9 successfully launches Taiwan’s Formosat-5, https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/08/falcon-9-vandenberg-launch-formosat-5/ says, "A Spaceflight Incorporated rideshare payload, consisting of a SHERPA adaptor with up to ninety small satellites, had been scheduled to fly as a secondary payload however this was removed from the launch due to uncertainty over the launch date, after Falcon 9 was grounded towards the end of last year."

Here is part of the announcement from Spaceflight's President, Curt Blake, on 2 March, 2017: http://spaceflight.com/a-message-from-spaceflight-president-curt-blake-on-the-formosat-5sherpa-launch/

We applaud the work that SpaceX has done, and is continuing to do on behalf of the industry. We couldn’t be more thrilled to see them solve some of the toughest challenges of our time and always look forward to working with them. However, they recently communicated their 2017 manifest and the impact on the Formosat-5 mission is significant. We learned our launch would occur potentially much later than expected. (As a secondary rideshare on this mission, our control of the schedule is far less than when we’re the primary like on our SSO-A dedicated mission later this year.)

Our response: Our job, first and foremost, is to satisfy our customers’ needs to get into space as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. While delays are inevitable in the launch business, we made the decision to rebook all our customers slated to launch on the FormoSat-5 mission.

The result: We found each of our customers an alternative launch that was within the same time frame. It took a huge effort, but within two weeks, the team hustled to have all customers who wanted to be rebooked confirmed on other launches!

Here is where that announcement is discussed in the Formosat-5 Discussion thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21984.msg1649492#msg1649492

Regarding the Wired article, it didn't strike me as biased either.  It did say, "SpaceX will pay 1.25 percent of the launch costs back to them for every month that Formosat-5 is delayed, according to the mission’s contract."  I wonder what point that started counting from.

~Kirk

[rpapo]

IIRC, there was a limit on the penalty amount.

[king1999]

Regarding the Wired article, it didn't strike me as biased either.  It did say, "SpaceX will pay 1.25 percent of the launch costs back to them for every month that Formosat-5 is delayed, according to the mission’s contract."  I wonder what point that started counting from.

~Kirk

I think the maximum was 10% so it didn't matter when that started counting.

[ChrisGebhardt]

1.  Mr Gebhardt second paragraph, third sentence. 

2.  The entire eighth paragraph makes what I believe to be assumptions unfavorable to SpaceX

3.  What does the picture of Amos6 explosion have to do with Formosasat?

4.  The entire next to last paragraph

1.  That sentence is "After the lightest single payload to ever hitch a ride on a Falcon 9 separates, the booster will fly back for a drone ship landing—hopefully to be reused in future, more economically viable missions."  Not seeing what's factually inaccurate or biased against SpaceX there.  Formosat-5 is the lightest payload (except the classified NROL-76 payload and the first three Dragon demo missions in 2010 and 2012) to hitch a ride on Falcon 9 that we know of.  As this was a pre-launch article, being hopeful for a successful landing for economical reuse is also accurate.

2. 8th paragraph is: "So how much is SpaceX going to lose on this mission? If you remove the potential reusability of the Falcon 9 booster for a moment, a lot. According to a launch cost analysis by investment firm Jefferies International, SpaceX usually makes a 40 percent profit from $62 million commercial Falcon 9 launches with new boosters. That puts $25 million in the bank and $37 million toward direct launch costs. With Taiwan’s severely reduced fare of $23 million, SpaceX is not only foregoing its profit but will be out-of-pocket for the remaining $14 million."  What do you believe are the unfavorable assumptions against SpaceX?

3. That picture is not part of the article.  It's part of three links to related articles.  As the AMOS-6 conflagration is discussed in the article, that would be a valid related article link.

4. The entire second to last paragraph:  "For an industry struggling to reduce the price and accessibility of space, the Formosat-5 launch is a dramatic waste of resources. It also reveals an emerging but underserved market for customers hoping to launch smaller satellites. Vector Space Systems—founded by former SpaceX exec Jim Cantrell—is promising a dramatic reduction in launch costs for smaller payloads with readily available flights. It completed a test flight of its rocket with commercial payloads earlier this month. And launch startup Rocket Lab, with $75 million in funding, recently tested a rocket at its facility in New Zealand."  Again, I'm not personally seeing a biased against SpaceX or anything that isn't factual.

[Nomadd]

 I must be getting bored with the rain. I just figured that the booster missed it's landing target by an astronomical amount. 0.00000000000000000072 light years if I figured it right.

[envy887]

With regards to the long braking burn, another factor to consider is that the 1st stage had a lot of margin here.  Why not do a nice long gentle re-entry if you have the fuel to spare?

Yes, but coming down from more than twice the usual altitude, the stage should be going roughly 1.5-2 times faster than usual at the point when it started hitting the atmosphere.  And it was coming almost straight down, since it was so much more lofted than usual, so the transition in air density would be that much more abrupt.

According to some rough calculations, if the rocket peaked at about 250 kilometers altitude, and free-fell for 200km (assuming thicker air at about 50km), at the end of that fall it would be going approximately 2000 m/s, or 4500 mph. 

By the same calculation, falling from 120 km (IIRC), the speed upon hitting the thicker air would be around 1170 m/s, or 2600 mph.

Bottom line: a much longer reentry burn is required.  Somebody else could produce more accurate numbers than mine.  A higher value for where the air gets thicker would result in lower entry speeds, of course.

You're ignoring horizontal velocity, which is very significant especially for depressed trajectories. This entry might have been hotter than a typical LEO (which usually have minimal horizontal velocity), but was not as hot as any GTO missions - those are all going downrange very fast.

[deruch]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

There are some glaring errors in the article and some very apparent biases against SpaceX...

I actually thought it was very positive for the space industry.  In any normal capitalist market, companies bid what they think it will cost, plus some profit.   Sometimes they are wrong and lose money on a particular contract.  If they do it too often, they go out of business.

So this to me indicates the launch market is becoming more commercial, and imposing financial discipline.   In the long run that's a good thing, as both customers and vendors try to optimize value for every dollar they spend.

My only "problems" with the article is when SpaceX's internal costs are so obscure any simple A-B=C analysis is going to run the risk of being very off base and, more importantly, I felt it framed the financial issue incorrectly.  When SpaceX cancelled production of the F1e, they could have just cancelled the remaining contracts and negotiated compensation or, if an agreement couldn't be reached, fought it out in court or through mediation.  Instead they chose to honor the contracts even though doing so with an F9 was likely going to entail a vastly underpriced F9 contract.  So, to my mind, the questions should have been, Did SpaceX lose more in missed revenues than they would have had to pay in compensation for breaking their original contract?  How did SpaceX's strategy to offer 'make-up' launches on the F9 affect their standing with other potential customers?  Retrospectively, how do the customers that opted to fly with other launch providers instead of waiting for an F9 feel compared to those who waited?  etc. 

[rpapo]

With regards to the long braking burn, another factor to consider is that the 1st stage had a lot of margin here.  Why not do a nice long gentle re-entry if you have the fuel to spare?

Yes, but coming down from more than twice the usual altitude, the stage should be going roughly 1.5-2 times faster than usual at the point when it started hitting the atmosphere.  And it was coming almost straight down, since it was so much more lofted than usual, so the transition in air density would be that much more abrupt.

According to some rough calculations, if the rocket peaked at about 250 kilometers altitude, and free-fell for 200km (assuming thicker air at about 50km), at the end of that fall it would be going approximately 2000 m/s, or 4500 mph. 

By the same calculation, falling from 120 km (IIRC), the speed upon hitting the thicker air would be around 1170 m/s, or 2600 mph.

Bottom line: a much longer reentry burn is required.  Somebody else could produce more accurate numbers than mine.  A higher value for where the air gets thicker would result in lower entry speeds, of course.

You're ignoring horizontal velocity, which is very significant especially for depressed trajectories. This entry might have been hotter than a typical LEO (which usually have minimal horizontal velocity), but was not as hot as any GTO missions - those are all going downrange very fast.

I know that.  I was doing rough calculations only relevant to the highly lofted kind of trajectory we just saw.  I was only looking for a comparison of velocities at the time of hitting the upper atmosphere.  That it was no-where near as hot as one of the GTO launches was evident from how the grid-fins didn't start smoking.

[su27k]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

There are some glaring errors in the article and some very apparent biases against SpaceX...

What are the "glaring errors"?

Here's some errors:

1. "The overkill is thanks to a years-long delay": It's due to the cancellation of F1e, it has nothing to do with delays.

2. "So how did Taiwan hitch a discounted ride on a Falcon 9? Delay after delay.": If you read the first few pages of this thread, it's clear the satellite isn't even ready until early 2016, so there's only one delay caused by Amos-6.

I did not check the archives, just by what I remember about this story:

#1 - I do not agree. Here is my recollection: as of beginning of 2016, this flight was planned as Formosat-5 WITH co-passenger, Sherpa (with about 80 nano-satellites). Later in the year, Sherpa withdraw from this flight BECAUSE of delays, they had a number of customers who could not wait. IIRC(*), this happened before the AMOS-6 explosion. But even if it happened after - it has nothing to do with F1e cancellation, all this happened in 2016, and F1e was canceled (shelved) in 2009 (again - IIRC).
Bottom-line for your #1 - this *overkill* (the payload being 5-7 times lighter then actual F9FT performance for this type of orbit) was caused by a canceled RIDESHARE (not by old story with F1e), it happened sometime last year, and this ride-share cancellation was indeed caused by launch delays.
* - The best way to check the facts here is to look through last year press-releases by Spaceflight Industries.

Adding Sherpa wouldn't change the mass equation significantly, there're mass numbers on Sherpa on page 6, it's only 1.2 tons, adding it would still make this mission 5-7 times lighter than the full performance. The fundamental reason of the performance mismatch is because they switched a satellite originally booked on a smallsat launcher to a EELV medium class launcher which later grew to near heavy class, that's where the overkill comes from, adding some secondary payload is not going to change that.

#2 - " the satellite isn't even ready until early 2016"
- correct.
However, the *satellite was ready early 2016* and *satellite was launched in Aug 2017* - these two statements are perfectly consistent with "thanks to a years-long delay" from the article.

a 1.5 year delay is not "years-long" delay. If you read the article without knowing all the background, it's clear they're trying to make the case that this mission was delayed from its original launch date of 2013, this is what they meant by "years-long delay" and "delay after delay", which is simply not true.

Another way to reconstruct this story with Sherpa rescheduling is to look through "US launch schedule" thread.

The story is never about Sherpa, Sherpa is just footnote. The story should be about cancellation of F1, which is much more than Formosat-5. This is not the first time an overkill mission happened, and this is not the first time SpaceX flies a mission with a big loss (I think they took an even bigger loss on Orbcomm missions), a real journalist would try to find out the reason SpaceX is doing this, instead of trying to blame everything on delays.

[gongora]

The article clearly mentions that Formosat-5 launched on F9 because F1 was cancelled.  This discussion is going nowhere.  Please stop.

[ZachF]

In 2015 at this point, China Great Wall had only three launches.  Went on to launch 19 for the year.

24 is still well short of 30 (although more than SpaceX will do).

We'll see.

China has also had a string of failures the last year, so going full throttle in 2H seems less likely. China has had 4 full or partial failures out of the last 18 launches, more failures just in the last year than they've had in the previous ~13 years.

[SmallKing]

China expects about 30 launches.

They have had eight (one failed) so far this year, so yeah... no.

In 2015 at this point, China Great Wall had only three launches.  Went on to launch 19 for the year.

But not this year. Since last double failure, CALT had delayed all launches planned this year, you can check launch schedule in 2017 here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5060.msg1697851#msg1697851

[SmallKing]

In 2015 at this point, China Great Wall had only three launches.  Went on to launch 19 for the year.

24 is still well short of 30 (although more than SpaceX will do).

We'll see.

China has also had a string of failures the last year, so going full throttle in 2H seems less likely. China has had 4 full or partial failures out of the last 18 launches, more failures just in the last year than they've had in the previous ~13 years.

Even more seriously, It's 5 full or partial failures(If we count CZ-5 Y1)

[Steve D]

Any reports on pad condition after the launch?