Video of the test from US Launch Report.
Quote from: Navier–Stokes on 02/23/2016 05:31 pmMission press kit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_ses9_press_kit_final.pdf"Following stage separation, the first stage of the Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the “Of Course I Still Love You” droneship. Given this mission’s unique GTO profile, a successful landing is not expected."No timeline for first-stage landing included this time.At the same time James Dean tweets the following: "SES has clarified that profile adjustment made to upcoming launch had no bearing on F9 booster recovery; only impacts upper stage burn." https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/702182942458642432A little confusing.
Mission press kit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_ses9_press_kit_final.pdf"Following stage separation, the first stage of the Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the “Of Course I Still Love You” droneship. Given this mission’s unique GTO profile, a successful landing is not expected."No timeline for first-stage landing included this time.
Over from the updates thread, I just wanted to observe from the static firing that this pad does a great job of directing all the smoke/flame sideways (which seemed to catch the camera operator off-guard), leaving the vehicle visible throughout. That has to be regarded as a positive step (and not just for us spectators). Of course at launch, there will still be some exhaust after lift-off that stays local to the pad.Quote from: Craig_VG on 02/23/2016 04:56 amVideo of the test from US Launch Report.
In other words, odds of successful stage recovery were low even before SpaceX offered SES extra delta V. But seems to me you could argue they're even lower now. I guess maybe "low" and "lower" are still in the same semantic ballpark.Anyway, that statement is coming from the payload, not SpaceX, so perhaps we should take it with a grain of salt.
Quote from: tleski on 02/23/2016 06:09 pmQuote from: Navier–Stokes on 02/23/2016 05:31 pmMission press kit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_ses9_press_kit_final.pdf"Following stage separation, the first stage of the Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the “Of Course I Still Love You” droneship. Given this mission’s unique GTO profile, a successful landing is not expected."No timeline for first-stage landing included this time.At the same time James Dean tweets the following: "SES has clarified that profile adjustment made to upcoming launch had no bearing on F9 booster recovery; only impacts upper stage burn." https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/702182942458642432A little confusing.All a booster can do is get US+payload to staging. US is responsible for orbital velocity and margin for stage shortfall (you can't minimize this margin). 3 burns can improve this, more props e.g. more densified can get you this.In truth a higher/faster staging still, in theory, has no bearing on stage recovery, because it could still make it to a landing. It would however have bearing on stage reuse, in yielding a stage that has its integrity compromised.This might explain how both statements are still true and consistent.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/23/2016 07:25 pmQuote from: tleski on 02/23/2016 06:09 pmQuote from: Navier–Stokes on 02/23/2016 05:31 pmMission press kit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_ses9_press_kit_final.pdf"Following stage separation, the first stage of the Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the “Of Course I Still Love You” droneship. Given this mission’s unique GTO profile, a successful landing is not expected."No timeline for first-stage landing included this time.At the same time James Dean tweets the following: "SES has clarified that profile adjustment made to upcoming launch had no bearing on F9 booster recovery; only impacts upper stage burn." https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/702182942458642432A little confusing.All a booster can do is get US+payload to staging. US is responsible for orbital velocity and margin for stage shortfall (you can't minimize this margin). 3 burns can improve this, more props e.g. more densified can get you this.In truth a higher/faster staging still, in theory, has no bearing on stage recovery, because it could still make it to a landing. It would however have bearing on stage reuse, in yielding a stage that has its integrity compromised.This might explain how both statements are still true and consistent.Wait, doesn't the statement that the adjusted trajectory "only impacts upper stage burn" imply that the extra delta V is coming from the upper stage, not S1, and therefore S1 will have the same amount of residual props for the recovery attempt? That's how I read it.In which case, the asjustment has "no bearing" on S1 recovery odds, and the statements are consistent.
Quote from: Kabloona on 02/23/2016 08:03 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/23/2016 07:25 pmQuote from: tleski on 02/23/2016 06:09 pmQuote from: Navier–Stokes on 02/23/2016 05:31 pmMission press kit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_ses9_press_kit_final.pdf"Following stage separation, the first stage of the Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the “Of Course I Still Love You” droneship. Given this mission’s unique GTO profile, a successful landing is not expected."No timeline for first-stage landing included this time.At the same time James Dean tweets the following: "SES has clarified that profile adjustment made to upcoming launch had no bearing on F9 booster recovery; only impacts upper stage burn." https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/702182942458642432A little confusing.All a booster can do is get US+payload to staging. US is responsible for orbital velocity and margin for stage shortfall (you can't minimize this margin). 3 burns can improve this, more props e.g. more densified can get you this.In truth a higher/faster staging still, in theory, has no bearing on stage recovery, because it could still make it to a landing. It would however have bearing on stage reuse, in yielding a stage that has its integrity compromised.This might explain how both statements are still true and consistent.Wait, doesn't the statement that the adjusted trajectory "only impacts upper stage burn" imply that the extra delta V is coming from the upper stage, not S1, and therefore S1 will have the same amount of residual props for the recovery attempt? That's how I read it.In which case, the asjustment has "no bearing" on S1 recovery odds, and the statements are consistent.Which doesn't make sense. Since the upper stage is expended it should have been delivering them to the best orbit possible to begin with. Something is lost in translation.
except that this is a 'new' stage design (FT), and they now have one flight's worth of data - perhaps they can safely reduce their calculated margins based on the first flight and release a little more performance to the customer.
I find all these conflicting reports very conflicting. SES tweets say that the probability of recovery is lower suggesting that S1 is using more propellant rather than S2
Quote from: Lar on 02/23/2016 08:17 pmI find all these conflicting reports very conflicting. SES tweets say that the probability of recovery is lower suggesting that S1 is using more propellant rather than S2I agree. Weren't there specific quotes relating to SpaceX sacrificing some recovery odds to help them out. I feel like we would have heard a different message had the first flight just retired some margins on the second stage.
Quote from: Kabloona on 02/23/2016 08:03 pmWait, doesn't the statement that the adjusted trajectory "only impacts upper stage burn" imply that the extra delta V is coming from the upper stage, not S1, and therefore S1 will have the same amount of residual props for the recovery attempt? That's how I read it.In which case, the asjustment has "no bearing" on S1 recovery odds, and the statements are consistent.Which doesn't make sense. Since the upper stage is expended it should have been delivering them to the best orbit possible to begin with. Something is lost in translation.
Wait, doesn't the statement that the adjusted trajectory "only impacts upper stage burn" imply that the extra delta V is coming from the upper stage, not S1, and therefore S1 will have the same amount of residual props for the recovery attempt? That's how I read it.In which case, the asjustment has "no bearing" on S1 recovery odds, and the statements are consistent.
James Dean – Verified account @flatoday_jdeanThe Falcon 9 upper stage will burn for a few more seconds than initially was planned to lift SES-9 to higher orbit, cut days to GEO in half.
Quote from: okan170 on 02/23/2016 04:52 amQuote from: matthewkantar on 02/22/2016 10:49 pmPics of static fire on SpaceX's Instagram and Facebook.Enjoy, MatthewSeems like there are two rounded rectangles on either side of the leg here, a little bit inset. Previous flights' legs had a roughly square protrusion (small fairing?) here.It also seems they are very faintly visible on this image tweeted by the 45th Space Wing.https://twitter.com/45thSpaceWing/status/701891806255046657Tape. But I am noticing this string/wire first time.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 02/22/2016 10:49 pmPics of static fire on SpaceX's Instagram and Facebook.Enjoy, MatthewSeems like there are two rounded rectangles on either side of the leg here, a little bit inset. Previous flights' legs had a roughly square protrusion (small fairing?) here.It also seems they are very faintly visible on this image tweeted by the 45th Space Wing.https://twitter.com/45thSpaceWing/status/701891806255046657
Pics of static fire on SpaceX's Instagram and Facebook.Enjoy, Matthew
The timeline in the press kit has the fairing staying with S2 for 55 seconds after startup - Is this an error in the timeline? Usually it's been ~10-15 seconds. I can't think of any reason to wait so long unless unusually low staging or a really fragile payload still needs it.