There seems to have been a new US on the last two launches.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 05/16/2017 06:46 pmThere seems to have been a new US on the last two launches.What showed you that?
The booster was definitively run at higher thrust than SES-10 (which was known to be Block 1).
Quote from: envy887 on 05/17/2017 01:18 amThe booster was definitively run at higher thrust than SES-10 (which was known to be Block 1). Hold on. SES-10 carried all the recovery hardware and its associated mass with it, Inmarsat was a stripped booster. Have you considered whether the booster dry mass difference is in the right ballpark to explain the hotter ascent of B1034? My gut feeling tells me it's not enough, but even BOTE numbers trump gut feelings...How does this boost phase compare to EchoStar 23?
Quote from: ugordan on 05/17/2017 07:50 amQuote from: envy887 on 05/17/2017 01:18 amThe booster was definitively run at higher thrust than SES-10 (which was known to be Block 1). Hold on. SES-10 carried all the recovery hardware and its associated mass with it, Inmarsat was a stripped booster. Have you considered whether the booster dry mass difference is in the right ballpark to explain the hotter ascent of B1034? My gut feeling tells me it's not enough, but even BOTE numbers trump gut feelings...How does this boost phase compare to EchoStar 23?Yeah, the analysis needs to be done with Echostar-23 and Inmarsat-5. If you do that, you'll see that that Echostar actually accelerates faster, but Inmarsat burns for longer and reaches a higher MECO velocity of about 50 m/s more. To me, nothing to indicate higher thrust engines, but possibly some evidence for more prop load.
but possibly some evidence for more prop load.
Quote from: stcks on 05/17/2017 01:06 pmbut possibly some evidence for more prop load.It is reasonable to assume there was more prop load as they used the new fast-load procedure for the first time on this flight, so the prop should have been colder and denser than in previous flights with the longer/slower load procedure.EDIT: Yeah what he said
I5F4 also accelerated through transonic much more aggressively than SES-10, which is interesting.
Former intern at KSC gives some very interesting details about 1021:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62aqi7/rspacex_ses10_official_launch_discussion_updates/dfl9xge/QuoteI've been waiting so long for this! I interned at LC-39A while the refurb was going on and boy did B1021 give us trouble! I'm so happy to finally see my baby fly!Edit: since people are asking for more info, I'll give a couple fun problems we ran into.- Trying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1- Trying to remove parts that weren't originally intended to be removable- Discovering parts on the booster that theoretically didn't exist before it launchedSo, 1021 was a Block 2 booster that's been upgraded to Block 3, if this person is correct. More details in the thread.
I've been waiting so long for this! I interned at LC-39A while the refurb was going on and boy did B1021 give us trouble! I'm so happy to finally see my baby fly!Edit: since people are asking for more info, I'll give a couple fun problems we ran into.- Trying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1- Trying to remove parts that weren't originally intended to be removable- Discovering parts on the booster that theoretically didn't exist before it launched
Quote from: envy887 on 05/17/2017 01:18 amThe booster was definitively run at higher thrust than SES-10 (which was known to be Block 1).How / where is SES-10 known to be Block 1? From the quote below it seems that SES-10 was flown as a Block 3, which was born as a Block 2 and upgraded using some Block 1 processes. But that doesn't make it a Block 1 vehicle.Quote from: Formica on 03/30/2017 06:17 pmFormer intern at KSC gives some very interesting details about 1021:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62aqi7/rspacex_ses10_official_launch_discussion_updates/dfl9xge/QuoteI've been waiting so long for this! I interned at LC-39A while the refurb was going on and boy did B1021 give us trouble! I'm so happy to finally see my baby fly!Edit: since people are asking for more info, I'll give a couple fun problems we ran into.- Trying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1- Trying to remove parts that weren't originally intended to be removable- Discovering parts on the booster that theoretically didn't exist before it launchedSo, 1021 was a Block 2 booster that's been upgraded to Block 3, if this person is correct. More details in the thread.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/30/2017 01:30 amI haven't seen any evidence showing that they aren't aligned.I have, there's plenty.Quote from: Spiiice (employee)I... I actually don't know how the blocks line up with the version numbers. Version numbers are pretty much strictly used outside the company and by Elon.Quote from: Foximus05 (ex-employee)Correction. [SES-10] was a block 1 (crs8) and wont fly again. Block 3 boosters could have multiple flights before being retired....Former coworkers of mine that still work there referred to the CRS8 core as a block 1 when we were talking about it last weekend.Quote from: DSBromeister (ex-intern)Trying to upgrade parts [on B1021] from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1Quote from: skiboysteve (employee)The impression [in SpaceX fan communities] of what the blocks are has never been verified as true. But everyone here acts like its a fact. It's just been repeated enough times...
I haven't seen any evidence showing that they aren't aligned.
I... I actually don't know how the blocks line up with the version numbers. Version numbers are pretty much strictly used outside the company and by Elon.
Correction. [SES-10] was a block 1 (crs8) and wont fly again. Block 3 boosters could have multiple flights before being retired....Former coworkers of mine that still work there referred to the CRS8 core as a block 1 when we were talking about it last weekend.
Trying to upgrade parts [on B1021] from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1
The impression [in SpaceX fan communities] of what the blocks are has never been verified as true. But everyone here acts like its a fact. It's just been repeated enough times...
Can somebody set the record straight ? What I am missing in the block versions ?Was there any Block 2 boosters reflown or planned to be reflown ?
Can somebody set the record straight ? What I am missing in the block versions ?
Was there any Block 2 boosters reflown or planned to be reflown ?
What if he threw out "42"? I think it very might well cause actual seizures...
Quote from: envy887 on 05/17/2017 01:29 pmI5F4 also accelerated through transonic much more aggressively than SES-10, which is interesting.From the comparison graph, I5F4 flew a more lofted trajectory, so maybe transonic happened at higher altitude, lower dynamic pressure? I would assume that the reason for SES-10's flatter trajectory is to reduce re-entry heating as it was flying to ASDS not taking a one-way trip like I5F4.
The maximum flow rate of the turbopumps is measured in terms of volume of propellant, not mass, right? The same volume of denser, colder propellant flowing through the pumps would mean more propellant mass which would by definition mean more thrust, right?