Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION  (Read 500400 times)

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?

I believe the base (around the octaweb and legs) and the interstage are the only areas covered by "traditional" spam. The rest is metal covered by thinner paint coatings that are easier to wash. But I could be mistaken.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 12:48 am by Lars-J »

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?

I believe the base (around the octaweb and legs) and the interstage are the only areas covered by "traditional" spam. The rest is metal covered by thinner paint coatings that are easier to wash. But I could be mistaken.

If they keep up this re-launch thing they might have to try anodising..  :D
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?

The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Has anybody considered the PR that companies like SES get for being the first to launch on a new SpaceX configuration. I know that personally I know a lot more about SES now then before their flights. I think Iridium got a boost from the PR too.
If we said "no" to your question, would you believe us?
Have you read this thread and the parallel L2 thread?
It's really hard to come up with new considerations here as we approach 500 posts in this thread alone.  That's not one.
Feel free to debate whether SES would consider PR a reason to assume significantly greater risk to their satellite.
Feel free to debate whether PR is financially significant to SES. 
Would you be more likely to sign a contract with them, vs their competition, because they are "first to launch on a new SpaceX configuration"?

On what do you base your conclusion the "Iridium got a boost"? 
Unless that's a pun....
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?

The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.

The "scars of battle" I suppose.  Presumably someone in SpaceX decided that a grubby-looking stage would/should perform no differently to a freshly-painted one whilst saving a few $k in paint and labour.

Perhaps the grubby-ness is part of their testing regime?  You know, to see if it gets more grubby??

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
How many seconds between ignition and T0?

Is this time consistent or has anyone noticed that number moving around on various launches?
Looked at the last couple press kits, it's been T-3 Merlin-1D ignition T-0 liftoff.


Pinning down the ignition to 0.1 sec. or something is probably a futile attempt. So many things happen in short succession that you can't really say that one of the events is the ignition time. 2 to 3 sec before liftoff might be as good as it gets.

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 1349
  • Likes Given: 2394
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?

The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.

The "scars of battle" I suppose.  Presumably someone in SpaceX decided that a grubby-looking stage would/should perform no differently to a freshly-painted one whilst saving a few $k in paint and labour.

Perhaps the grubby-ness is part of their testing regime?  You know, to see if it gets more grubby??

One reason to not re-paint is that fresh paint adds weight.  Extra pounds on the first stage reduces stack overall performance to orbit.  If the existing paint is still doing its proper job, leave it alone. Wash it, check it, paint over patches where it is damaged if necessary and go back to work.  Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.
On the ground floor of the National Space Foundation... Colonize Mars!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?

The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.

The "scars of battle" I suppose.  Presumably someone in SpaceX decided that a grubby-looking stage would/should perform no differently to a freshly-painted one whilst saving a few $k in paint and labour.

Perhaps the grubby-ness is part of their testing regime?  You know, to see if it gets more grubby??

One reason to not re-paint is that fresh paint adds weight.  Extra pounds on the first stage reduces stack overall performance to orbit.  If the existing paint is still doing its proper job, leave it alone. Wash it, check it, paint over patches where it is damaged if necessary and go back to work.  Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.

"We run the tightest (space)ship in the shipping business"

UPS might not like them using that slogan but yeah. UPS washes trucks a lot, (it saves fuel), but doesn't repaint them unless they have to. (it adds weight)... same exact thinking.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.

Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline mheney

  • The Next Man on the Moon
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Silver Spring, MD
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 199
Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.

Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?

Yes - right until liftoff.  Vibration and airflow tend to clean the ice off pretty effectively.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 470
Quote
Our CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!

https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818

https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7

Here are some notes:

* Mass is 5281.7 kg, insertion orbit will be 35410 km x 218 km at 26.2º, so barely subsynchronous GTO. Orbit raising will be done with chemical engines.

* SES block bought SES-10, SES-11, SES-14, SES-16. Then last August they were approached with the opportunity to use a pre-flown booster.

* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.

* First stage booster is contractually obligated to make certain altitude, velocity, downrange, etc. SpaceX works with the leftovers for landing. This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.

* Satellite requires 13 hours of checkouts once the full stack is vertical on the pad.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 03:37 pm by old_sellsword »

Offline WmThomas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • An objective space fan
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 5217
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?

If you look at the returned stages, the bottom half is always very dark, and it looks almost painted that way. That's because, as you note, the cold LOX tanks create ice on the exterior, and this keeps most of the soot off of that (upper) half of the stage. But the bottom half (yes, it's not exactly half) contains warmer RP-1, and that's one reason it collects a lot more soot in the landing process.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Quote
Our CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!

https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818

https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7

Here are some notes:
(snip)
* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.
(snip)

For those of you speculating on the increased risk to the payload, all the things that could be degrading from launch to launch and the "unknown unknowns", the professionals have spoken, putting money on the line.
The increase in risk pricing is 0.01%.

edit: grammar
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 04:49 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 1280
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?

If you look at the returned stages, the bottom half is always very dark, and it looks almost painted that way. That's because, as you note, the cold LOX tanks create ice on the exterior, and this keeps most of the soot off of that (upper) half of the stage. But the bottom half (yes, it's not exactly half) contains warmer RP-1, and that's one reason it collects a lot more soot in the landing process.

Doesn't that mean that a layer of ice had been with the booster all the time until it landed? I think the soot was from the three burns, probably most from the first two burns.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?

If you look at the returned stages, the bottom half is always very dark, and it looks almost painted that way. That's because, as you note, the cold LOX tanks create ice on the exterior, and this keeps most of the soot off of that (upper) half of the stage. But the bottom half (yes, it's not exactly half) contains warmer RP-1, and that's one reason it collects a lot more soot in the landing process.

Doesn't that mean that a layer of ice had been with the booster all the time until it landed? I think the soot was from the three burns, probably most from the first two burns.

Exactly... A very thin ice layer must stay with the tank throughout most of the flight. Either that, or the colder surface of the LOX tank makes it more difficult for the soot to adhere.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 05:08 pm by Lars-J »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Doesn't that mean that a layer of ice had been with the booster all the time until it landed? I think the soot was from the three burns, probably most from the first two burns.

Exactly... A very thin ice layer must stay with the tank throughout most of the flight. Either that, or the colder surface of the LOX tank makes it more difficult for the soot to adhere.
In-space photos of old Atlas sustainer stages during Mercury missions showed a layer of what I would call "frost" still visible on much of the exterior of the LOX tank after Mercury capsule separation.  Most of the heavy "ice" itself was vibrated off during the engine start phase.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 05:14 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Quote
Our CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!

https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818

https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7

Here are some notes:

* Mass is 5281.7 kg, insertion orbit will be 35410 km x 218 km at 26.2º, so barely subsynchronous GTO. Orbit raising will be done with chemical engines.

* SES block bought SES-10, SES-11, SES-14, SES-16. Then last August they were approached with the opportunity to use a pre-flown booster.

* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.

* First stage booster is contractually obligated to make certain altitude, velocity, downrange, etc. SpaceX works with the leftovers for landing. This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.

* Satellite requires 13 hours of checkouts once the full stack is vertical on the pad.

I get 1,788m/s of delta-v deficit. So, while technically slightly subsynchronous, it would still be better than Cape standard 1,804m/s.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
During the presser this morning, I asked about the prolonged static fires for SES missions.  Halliwell said it wasn't a company request, it's just something SpaceX seems to do for their missions.

NOTE: Posting this because it was after their periscope live feed ended.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 06:24 pm by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 290
  • Likes Given: 381
so tomorrow is the day of the beginning of the new Space Era?

cool times to live in!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0