Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION  (Read 500427 times)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
This appears to be the FCC application for the SES-10 landing, since the operational start date is Feb. 20.  I still don't see an application for the EchoStar 23 landing?

North  28  15  19    West  74  1  18    Autonomous Drone Ship, within 10 nautical miles

Another first: the first re-landing of a stage.

Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.

It's about the same as SES-9.  There may be 3 heavier sats in their next 6 commsat missions.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Another first: the first re-landing of a stage.

That record belongs to New Shepard.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Not from an orbital launch.

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Another first: the first re-landing of a stage.

That record belongs to New Shepard.

If you want record for re-landing of any stage, there is Grasshopper.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
When you think about it, the AMOS-6 accident didn't really seriously affect the procedures that are really critical to launch cadence: pad flow, production and testing. ...
I peg to differ: Losing a pad at a time when #2, #3, and #4 are not (yet/again) available sounds like a shitty thing to me.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Another first: the first re-landing of a stage.

That record belongs to New Shepard.

If you want record for re-landing of any stage, there is Grasshopper.

DC-X, or how about the LEM? We are starting to really split hairs.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2017 12:23 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
Another first: the first re-landing of a stage.

That record belongs to New Shepard.

If you want record for re-landing of any stage, there is Grasshopper.

DC-X, or how about the LEM? We are starting to really split hairs.

Quite.  Claiming first is pretty irrelevant. What happens in the next 10 years IS relevant.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Not from an orbital launch.

Falcon 9 first stage (which is the part that landed) is suborbital. :-)

If you want record for re-landing of any stage, there is Grasshopper.

And before that DC-X, plus all the other reusable rockets that did that task. In any case, none of these rockets got anywhere near to space.

DC-X, or how about the LEM? We are starting to really split hairs.

The LM doesn't count because it wasn't reused.

For the record. Any corrections welcome!

First Rocket Soft Landing (jet assisted): Lunar Landing Research Vehicle 1 (30 October 1964)
First Rocket Soft Landing (capsule ejection): Luna 9 (3 February 1966)
First Rocket Soft Landing (vehicle intact): Surveyor 1 (2 June 1966)
First Rocket Soft Landing (crewed): Lunar Module 5 Eagle (20 July 1969)
First Rocket Soft Landing (slow speed): DC-X (18 August 1993)
First Rocket Soft Landing Reflight (slow speed): DC-X (11 September 1993)
First Rocket Soft Landing (sub orbital): New Shepard (23 November 2015)
First Rocket Soft Landing (launch vehicle first stage): Falcon 9 (22 December 2015)
First Rocket Soft Landing Reflight (sub orbital): New Shepard (22 January 2016)


« Last Edit: 01/22/2017 06:09 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81685
  • Likes Given: 36941
Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.

Edit:

Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.

I think Echostar 23 is 200 kg heavier than SES-10, hence why Echostar launch is expendable and SES-10 isn't?
« Last Edit: 01/22/2017 07:55 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.

I think Echostar 23 is 200 kg heavier than SES-10, hence why Echostar launch is expendable and SES-10 isn't?

I don't think 200kg is enough of a net difference to account for the fact that this will be an expendable mission. Rather, I am increasingly convinced that the return to slower propellant and helium loading procedures has cut nominal performance enough to eat into the nominal ~15% performance margin typically reserved for landing.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.

Edit:

Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.

I think Echostar 23 is 200 kg heavier than SES-10, hence why Echostar launch is expendable and SES-10 isn't?
I would not count on SES-10 being recovered.  As Herb points out, the "safe" propellent loading may include less dense propellent.  AMOS-6 caught them completely off guard IMO, so they are likely playing it extra safe.  I would.  But I'm not a steely-eyed missile man...
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline starhawk92

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Burlington, NC, USA, North America, Earth (for now)
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 227
Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.

Edit:

Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.

I think Echostar 23 is 200 kg heavier than SES-10, hence why Echostar launch is expendable and SES-10 isn't?
I would not count on SES-10 being recovered.  As Herb points out, the "safe" propellent loading may include less dense propellent.  AMOS-6 caught them completely off guard IMO, so they are likely playing it extra safe.  I would.  But I'm not a steely-eyed missile man...

Quite agree -- I'd be happy to lose boosters to Davy Jones in 2017 than any other fashion if I was SpaceX.  A "perfect" 2017 would bring back a lot of goodwill towards experimenting at the edge of performance again.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.

Edit:

Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.

I think Echostar 23 is 200 kg heavier than SES-10, hence why Echostar launch is expendable and SES-10 isn't?
I would not count on SES-10 being recovered.  As Herb points out, the "safe" propellent loading may include less dense propellent.  AMOS-6 caught them completely off guard IMO, so they are likely playing it extra safe.  I would.  But I'm not a steely-eyed missile man...
The short-term solution to the AMOS 6 anomaly is not less dense propellants. It loading warmer Helium.

Offline rsdavis9

The short-term solution to the AMOS 6 anomaly is not less dense propellants. It loading warmer Helium.

I think the biggest performance reduction is the extra weight and volume reduction from the extra copv.

The lox loading time went from 30m to 45m not a big difference. I remember seeing estimates of how much warms and it was not that significant. Maybe 2 deg per hour.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
The short-term solution to the AMOS 6 anomaly is not less dense propellants. It loading warmer Helium.

I think the biggest performance reduction is the extra weight and volume reduction from the extra copv.

The lox loading time went from 30m to 45m not a big difference. I remember seeing estimates of how much warms and it was not that significant. Maybe 2 deg per hour.
I feel people somehow are thinking that the new loading procedures somehow allow for warmer (and therefore less dense) LOX. Ive said this already, but I am fairly certain that this is NOT the case.

It would be true if the LOX was loaded and just sat there, boiling off. But that's not the case. New densified LOX from the GSE is continually replenishing the boiled off LOX, thereby keeping the temp (and therefore density) fairly constant.

So the only hit with slower loading is the amount of densified LOX in GSE storage that could (or could not) allow for a scrub and reload.

John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Herb Schaltegger

The short-term solution to the AMOS 6 anomaly is not less dense propellants. It loading warmer Helium.

I think the biggest performance reduction is the extra weight and volume reduction from the extra copv.

The lox loading time went from 30m to 45m not a big difference. I remember seeing estimates of how much warms and it was not that significant. Maybe 2 deg per hour.
I feel people somehow are thinking that the new loading procedures somehow allow for warmer (and therefore less dense) LOX. Ive said this already, but I am fairly certain that this is NOT the case.

It would be true if the LOX was loaded and just sat there, boiling off. But that's not the case. New densified LOX from the GSE is continually replenishing the boiled off LOX, thereby keeping the temp (and therefore density) fairly constant.

So the only hit with slower loading is the amount of densified LOX in GSE storage that could (or could not) allow for a scrub and reload.
There is a performance cost associated with a warmer bulk LOX temperature. Estimates have been made by others over the last few months.

That said, there is also a specific set of costs associated with booster recover and SpaceX could easily have decided it's not worth it for an older Block booster that will already have flown twice, especially with their experience recovering (and trying to recover) others from GTO missions last year, when recovery is so close to the margins on this Block.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333
The short-term solution to the AMOS 6 anomaly is not less dense propellants. It loading warmer Helium.

I think the biggest performance reduction is the extra weight and volume reduction from the extra copv.

The lox loading time went from 30m to 45m not a big difference. I remember seeing estimates of how much warms and it was not that significant. Maybe 2 deg per hour.
I feel people somehow are thinking that the new loading procedures somehow allow for warmer (and therefore less dense) LOX. Ive said this already, but I am fairly certain that this is NOT the case.

It would be true if the LOX was loaded and just sat there, boiling off. But that's not the case. New densified LOX from the GSE is continually replenishing the boiled off LOX, thereby keeping the temp (and therefore density) fairly constant.

So the only hit with slower loading is the amount of densified LOX in GSE storage that could (or could not) allow for a scrub and reload.

I don't think this is correct (as I believe Jim has stated already several times, so I'm just posting for him, saving him some keystrokes).

With normal lox, it warms, boils off and is vented, and the LOX is replenished by GSE. But supercooled LOX warming (NOT boiling) to be slightly warmer, it does not vent and cannot be replenished unless there was additional plumbing to allow you to remove the 'warmer' lox and replace it with colder lox. Apparently this additional plumbing does not exist.

Now how much it warms and what is the performance hit, that is another question that I am not commenting on, I have no idea, (though I bet Jim does ;)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
You can indeed keep the bulk LOx cold by allowing LOx to leave while replenishing with subcooled LOx. I see a geyser of LOx during part of the launch procedures, which I can only assume is this happening.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2017 02:56 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
I see a geyser of LOx during part of the launch procedures, which I can only assume is this happening.

This is GOX/LOX vented from the strongback, not the vehicle and it was happening on v1.1 launches as well.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
That said, there is also a specific set of costs associated with booster recover and SpaceX could easily have decided it's not worth it for an older Block booster that will already have flown twice, especially with their experience recovering (and trying to recover) others from GTO missions last year, when recovery is so close to the margins on this Block.

SpaceX filed paperwork with the FCC less than a week ago saying they are sending out the ASDS for this flight.  I'm going to interpret that as meaning they intend to try recovering the SES-10 booster.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1