The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?
Quote from: Jcc on 03/27/2017 11:43 pmThe 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.
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.
Quote from: Jcc on 03/27/2017 11:43 pmThe 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.
Quote from: mn on 03/27/2017 09:30 pmHow 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.
How many seconds between ignition and T0?Is this time consistent or has anyone noticed that number moving around on various launches?
Quote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 01:38 amQuote from: Jcc on 03/27/2017 11:43 pmThe 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??
Quote from: CameronD on 03/28/2017 04:11 amQuote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 01:38 amQuote from: Jcc on 03/27/2017 11:43 pmThe 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.
Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.
Quote from: CraigLieb on 03/28/2017 12:39 pmWashing 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)?
QuoteOur CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7
Our CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 03:23 pmQuoteOur CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7Here are some notes:(snip)* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.(snip)
Quote from: jpo234 on 03/28/2017 02:55 pmIsn'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.
Quote from: WmThomas on 03/28/2017 03:59 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 03/28/2017 02:55 pmIsn'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.
Quote from: king1999 on 03/28/2017 05:04 pmDoesn'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.
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.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 03:23 pmQuoteOur CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7Here 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.