Quote from: docmordrid on 01/21/2017 03:25 amQuote from: gongora on 01/20/2017 08:29 pmThis 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 milesAnother first: the first re-landing of a stage.Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.
Quote from: gongora on 01/20/2017 08:29 pmThis 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 milesAnother first: the first re-landing of a stage.
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.
Quote from: docmordrid on 01/21/2017 03:25 amAnother first: the first re-landing of a stage.That record belongs to New Shepard.
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. ...
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2017 08:46 amQuote from: docmordrid on 01/21/2017 03:25 amAnother 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.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 01/21/2017 11:02 amQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2017 08:46 amQuote from: docmordrid on 01/21/2017 03:25 amAnother 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.
Not from an orbital launch.
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.
Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.
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?
Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.Edit:Quote from: Flying Beaver on 01/21/2017 03:27 amHopefully, 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?
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/22/2017 07:51 amTime to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.Edit:Quote from: Flying Beaver on 01/21/2017 03:27 amHopefully, 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/23/2017 01:38 pmThe 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.
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 01/23/2017 01:47 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/23/2017 01:38 pmThe 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 see a geyser of LOx during part of the launch procedures, which I can only assume is this happening.
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.