Cannes, May 12th, 2014 – Thales Alenia Space announced today that it has signed a contract with the Korean satellite service operator KT Sat, subsidiary of KT Corporation, to build two telecommunications satellites, Koreasat-7 and Koreasat-5A, winning the contract against an international field of competitors. The two satellites will provide Internet access, multimedia, broadcasting and fixed communications services.As program prime contractor, Thales Alenia Space is in charge of the design, production, testing and On Ground Delivery (OGD) of the satellites. It will also take charge of the launch campaigns, the launch and early operations phase (LEOP) and in-orbit tests (IOT).Built on the Upgraded Spacebus 4000B2 platform from Thales Alenia Space, Koreasat-7 will be fitted with Ku-band transponders and Ka-band transponders. Koreasat-5A will carry Ku-band transponders. Koreasat-7's coverage zone encompasses Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and India, while Koreasat-5A will cover Korea, Japan, Indochina and the Middle East. Each satellite will weigh about 3,500 kg at launch and will offer payload power of about 7 kW. Koreasat-7 will be positioned at 116° East and Koreasat-5A at 113° East."I would like to express my warm thanks to KT Sat for choosing us to build these two new telecommunications satellites," said Jean-Loďc Galle, President and CEO of Thales Alenia Space. "KT Sat is a long-standing customer, for whom we already built the Koreasat-5 and Koreasat-6 satellites. Through this new contract, we are delighted to support the development of large-scale space programs in South Korea, and in Asia in general."
Cannes, October 12, 2015 – The Koreasat 5A and Koreasat 7 telecommunications satellites currently under construction by Thales Alenia Space will include the largest spacecraft parts ever made in Europe using a 3D printing technique called the “powder bed additive manufacturing process”. Measuring some 45cm by 40cm by 21cm, these telemetry and command antenna supports are made of aluminum. The parts for the two satellites are identical and were made in the same batch by the same machine.Thales Alenia Space uses the Concept Laser Xline 1000R 3D printer, the largest laser beam melting machine in Europe, belonging to Poly-Shape, a French company and partner of Thales Alenia Space.These two parts, featuring an innovative bio-design, have just passed their vibration acceptance tests, demonstrating perfectly reproducible dynamic behavior. Using 3D printing technology on this type of part offers a number of advantages, including 22% weight savings, a decrease in the production schedule of around one or two months, about 30% cost savings, and higher performance.An antenna support of this type is already in orbit since April 2015 on the TurkmenAlem satellite also built by Thales Alenia Space.
KTSat: We plan November SpaceX launch of our Koreasat 5A & early 2017 Ariane launch of Koreasat 7. But launch dates are moving targets....
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/827479074021003264Quotepbdes: @Thales_Alenia_S(3): 2d batch of IRDM Next sats planned for April on @SpaceX. Koreasat 5A geo sat may launch July on @SpaceX, then 3d IRDM.
pbdes: @Thales_Alenia_S(3): 2d batch of IRDM Next sats planned for April on @SpaceX. Koreasat 5A geo sat may launch July on @SpaceX, then 3d IRDM.
KT Sat announced June 14 that DDish TV, Mongolia’s sole direct-to-home television broadcaster, signed a multi-transponder lease for Koreasat-5A, a Ku-band satellite from Thales Alenia Space expected to launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket by year’s end.
The manifest indicates that there are plenty of launch slots in late summer into fall. So is this payload gated at the moment? Maybe that's part of how the X-37B got an August launch?
http://www.satnews.com/story.php?number=1007807499QuoteKT SAT plans to launch the KOREASAT-5A satellite in fourth quarter of 2017.
KT SAT plans to launch the KOREASAT-5A satellite in fourth quarter of 2017.
10 days (Sept. 29) to SpaceX Falcon 9 (SES-11) Static Fire...at 39A. Oct. 2 launch, then all hands on deck to prep 39A TEL for Falcon Heavy.
You know I dare not call 40 until I see it on a schedule
Tweet from Stephen ClarkSpaceX sets Oct. 7 & 9 launch dates for next two Falcon 9 flights from East and West Coasts. Koreasat 5A in late Oct. confirmed from pad 39A
Maybe they also put it to LC-39A because "Koreasat" - easier to get Korean delegates on site when you don't need to get them Air Force clearances and stuff...
Quote from: Jarnis on 09/27/2017 06:13 amMaybe they also put it to LC-39A because "Koreasat" - easier to get Korean delegates on site when you don't need to get them Air Force clearances and stuff...Huh? Why would there be a special problem for South Koreans? The Republic of China (aka Taiwan) representatives had no obvious problem to get into Vandenberg AFB for the launch of FORMOSAT-5.Or did you mistake the home of Samsung for the home of kjulat?
Quote from: jpo234 on 09/27/2017 10:57 amQuote from: Jarnis on 09/27/2017 06:13 amMaybe they also put it to LC-39A because "Koreasat" - easier to get Korean delegates on site when you don't need to get them Air Force clearances and stuff...Huh? Why would there be a special problem for South Koreans? The Republic of China (aka Taiwan) representatives had no obvious problem to get into Vandenberg AFB for the launch of FORMOSAT-5.Or did you mistake the home of Samsung for the home of kjulat?There has been general issues (basically, slower processing) as referenced by, if I recall right, SES. Basically it is harder to get foreigners cleared for LC-40 as it resides in Air Force base.
Quote from: Jarnis on 09/27/2017 12:17 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 09/27/2017 10:57 amQuote from: Jarnis on 09/27/2017 06:13 amMaybe they also put it to LC-39A because "Koreasat" - easier to get Korean delegates on site when you don't need to get them Air Force clearances and stuff...Huh? Why would there be a special problem for South Koreans? The Republic of China (aka Taiwan) representatives had no obvious problem to get into Vandenberg AFB for the launch of FORMOSAT-5.Or did you mistake the home of Samsung for the home of kjulat?There has been general issues (basically, slower processing) as referenced by, if I recall right, SES. Basically it is harder to get foreigners cleared for LC-40 as it resides in Air Force base.Not true. In fact, it's harder to get foreign media accredited for 39A missions that aren't NASA flights... so much so that SpaceX has outright told foreign media for some 39A missions that foreign media aren't allowed.
The roomba is optional for landing, but that broken thruster pod is not...How much time do they need before they need to sail off again for KoreaSat booster?Can they fix it in time?What are consequences for that booster if it cannot be fixed in time?Expend it or postpone launch?So many questions...
The roomba is optional for landing, but that broken thruster pod is not...
Quote from: Jakusb on 10/15/2017 06:41 pmThe roomba is optional for landing, but that broken thruster pod is not...Are four fully operational thrusters actually necessary for landing? With four independently powered thrusters, I don't imagine the stationkeeping algorithm would be rendered unable to function by having one less. I could certainly see the loss of one thruster reducing the available margins when it comes to control authority, putting tighter constraints on acceptable weather.It would be interesting to know what the minimum equipment list for an ASDS would be. Is one thruster offline acceptable? How about two diagonal? same side? same end? And how does a set of three current thrusters compare to the original four thrusters back before they were upgraded?
Quote from: ClayJar on 10/17/2017 04:21 pmQuote from: Jakusb on 10/15/2017 06:41 pmThe roomba is optional for landing, but that broken thruster pod is not...Are four fully operational thrusters actually necessary for landing? With four independently powered thrusters, I don't imagine the stationkeeping algorithm would be rendered unable to function by having one less. I could certainly see the loss of one thruster reducing the available margins when it comes to control authority, putting tighter constraints on acceptable weather.It would be interesting to know what the minimum equipment list for an ASDS would be. Is one thruster offline acceptable? How about two diagonal? same side? same end? And how does a set of three current thrusters compare to the original four thrusters back before they were upgraded?Probably not the place to discuss it at length, but I'd suspect that the positioning system would be able to hold station adequately on three thrusters - as long as the control system knew that it only had those three thrusters. If it believed it had four but only three were operating, the results might not be so great.
Regardless; would they be able to reprogram this flight to a Cape landing, if the ASDS isn't available?
Do they have a couple JLG boom lifts hoisted up on the RSS in that first pic?
TEL is now back in the HIF. There are also reports that all three FH cores are in there as well, I'm sure it's nice and cozy!
Quote from: vaporcobra on 10/26/2017 04:58 amTEL is now back in the HIF. There are also reports that all three FH cores are in there as well, I'm sure it's nice and cozy!Is it actually possible to fit 3 cores plus TEL in HIF at the same time? I thought HIF is only 5 cores wide, and TEL is 3 cores wide.
I believe the additional cores can be shifted some toward the "upper end" of the HIF floor so that the wider base of the T/E isn't an issue when it is also inside. This may not be a possibility when there are additional second stages inside (besides the one going on the T/E for the next launch), but should be fine if they only have the first stages in.
They are still in port.
Quote from: Michael Baylor on 10/26/2017 07:54 pmThey are still in port.That's potentially sad news, splashing a new one, rather than a block 3... If true though, while sad, it is the right thing to do for the customer
Quote from: Lar on 10/26/2017 08:26 pmQuote from: Michael Baylor on 10/26/2017 07:54 pmThey are still in port.That's potentially sad news, splashing a new one, rather than a block 3... If true though, while sad, it is the right thing to do for the customerThey still have some time left AFAIK, might be rushing to finish up repairs
If they do a partial boost-back burn to return near the coast, the droneship won't take too much time to get positioned.
Quote from: king1999 on 10/26/2017 08:51 pmIf they do a partial boost-back burn to return near the coast, the droneship won't take too much time to get positioned.Nod. I wonder how much time they need to reconfigure things or if they have already calculated 5 or 10 different parameter loads for different landing points or even expendable with different things tested or ?
Taken by VIP-badged guests at KSC earlier today! No obvious TEL changes that I can see.
Looks like the wings at the top of the TEL have been removed.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 10/29/2017 07:30 amLooks like the wings at the top of the TEL have been removed.I see them wrapped around the top of the rocket.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 10/29/2017 01:12 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 10/29/2017 07:30 amLooks like the wings at the top of the TEL have been removed.I see them wrapped around the top of the rocket.No - those are the stabilizer arms. But I do think the wings are still there, just very hard to make out
Does this Falcon 9 have titanium grid fins? If not, how many more flights until they have used up there supply of aluminium fins?
When will they post the webcast? The launch is supposed to be tomorrow. They seem to be getting later and later on posting.
Quote from: spacenut on 10/29/2017 08:35 pmWhen will they post the webcast? The launch is supposed to be tomorrow. They seem to be getting later and later on posting. I'm guessing about 12 hours before launch is when SpaceX will post the webcast.Technically, it's when they begin promoting the upcoming webcast.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 10/29/2017 08:39 pmQuote from: spacenut on 10/29/2017 08:35 pmWhen will they post the webcast? The launch is supposed to be tomorrow. They seem to be getting later and later on posting. I'm guessing about 12 hours before launch is when SpaceX will post the webcast.Technically, it's when they begin promoting the upcoming webcast.Normally SpaceX don't update the webcast page on their website until after the vehicle is vertical on the pad, as they like use a photo showing the pad with the vehicle in launch position on their frontpage.
I'm assuming that whoever posted it accidentally put "10:34 UTC" without specifying PM (since the listed time is 12 hours before the actual time), and that the actual launch time hasn't changed.
The primary launch window opens on Monday, October 30 at 3:34 p.m. EDT, or 19:34 UTC and closes at 5:58 p.m. EDT, or 21:58 UTC.A backup launch window opens on Tuesday, October 31 at 3:34 p.m. EDT, or 19:34 UTC and closes at 5:58 p.m. EDT, or 21:58 UTC
SpaceX photos
In the SpaceX photos on the updates thread there is a band around the left landing leg but not around the right one. Why the difference between legs?
Quote from: Danny452 on 10/30/2017 11:09 amIn the SpaceX photos on the updates thread there is a band around the left landing leg but not around the right one. Why the difference between legs?Just grey paint that completes the “X” in SpaceX.
Quote from: old_sellsword on 10/30/2017 11:11 amQuote from: Danny452 on 10/30/2017 11:09 amIn the SpaceX photos on the updates thread there is a band around the left landing leg but not around the right one. Why the difference between legs?Just grey paint that completes the “X” in SpaceX.I think you are looking at a different photo. I've cropped the legs and show them here.
Quote from: Danny452 on 10/30/2017 11:55 amQuote from: old_sellsword on 10/30/2017 11:11 amQuote from: Danny452 on 10/30/2017 11:09 amIn the SpaceX photos on the updates thread there is a band around the left landing leg but not around the right one. Why the difference between legs?Just grey paint that completes the “X” in SpaceX.I think you are looking at a different photo. I've cropped the legs and show them here.I’m not, see this angle.
My (quick and dirty) paint job of what F9 might look like on 39-A when the RSS is gone.Credit for the beautiful original photo: https://twitter.com/Mike_Seeley/status/924965790318841856
Tweet from Math SundinQuoteRUAG Space puts one ping pong ball in for every launch they are part of. @SpaceX designed their own and sent 500. @elonmusk
RUAG Space puts one ping pong ball in for every launch they are part of. @SpaceX designed their own and sent 500. @elonmusk
Tweet from Peter Guggenback:#KoreaSat5A equipped with our Ku-band #antennas for telemetry, tracking & command. To a successful launch! #RUAGSpace #Falcon9
Thales Alenia Spaas!
Seriously, is that thing actually okay?
I find it interesting listening in to the off-camera audible responses of the SpaceXers in the company cafeteria.
was this a planned "push the envelope" reentry? If so, that the stage is worse for wear and tear isn't necessarily bad.
My guess is they saw the fire suppression activate.
I find it fascinating how people stress over a bit of flame on the booster when the reentry environment it just went through was likely much worse, both in thermal and dynamic pressure respects.
Quote from: ugordan on 10/30/2017 06:52 pmI find it fascinating how people stress over a bit of flame on the booster when the reentry environment it just went through was likely much worse, both in thermal and dynamic pressure respects.*Huge* difference between controlled and uncontrolled heating.
Question: before the second ignition of the second stage engine the feed shows what seems to be a lot of particles flying around. What is this?
I may be a bit out of the loop here, but how often has SpaceX launched a payload to GTO with a returning first stage?
Did anyone else lose most of the deployment there?
Quote from: Joffan on 10/30/2017 07:11 pmDid anyone else lose most of the deployment there?Yeah, me too.
Quote from: jpo234 on 10/30/2017 07:07 pmQuestion: before the second ignition of the second stage engine the feed shows what seems to be a lot of particles flying around. What is this? Ice. Possibly oxygen ice.
Even so, I thought solid (and liquid) oxygen was a bit blue.
The SpaceX steamroller continues! With the level of armchair fault nitpicking that always follows these threads, I’m frankly surprised that SpaceX bothers with a stream at all. If you wonder why SpaceX is less open these days with images and video, look in the mirror.
So, is this two post-flight kerosene fires in a row? Seems like there's some sort of anomaly in the design if that's the case.
Quote from: dodo on 10/30/2017 07:09 pmI may be a bit out of the loop here, but how often has SpaceX launched a payload to GTO with a returning first stage?Since they started landing stages reliably, most of their flights have been to GTO and all but three returned. The launch log will be a good resource for you, as I am working from memory.(and got ninja'ed to boot.. well this makes up for it, they all didn't give the link....http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40544.0)
So, is this two post-flight kerosene fires in a row?
Congrats to SpaceX and KoreaSat!(Steamroller noises)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40544.0
SpaceX is about to go for its 16th successful launch attempt of the year 2017. Previous record for any year: Eight.
Another aspect of this launch. Previously, a lot of SpaceX launches were US government. This year, 11 of 16 have been commercial.
SpaceX has now landed more rockets (19) in less than two years than all of the Apollo and Skylab crew launches from 1968 to 1975.
QuoteSpaceX has now landed more rockets (19) in less than two years than all of the Apollo and Skylab crew launches from 1968 to 1975.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/925087543976218626(Yes, I know the comparison is hardly like for like!)
Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/30/2017 07:26 pmSo, is this two post-flight kerosene fires in a row? Seems like there's some sort of anomaly in the design if that's the case.Right. If they dumped them in the ocean, fires wouldn't break out after landing.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/30/2017 07:48 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 10/30/2017 07:26 pmSo, is this two post-flight kerosene fires in a row? Seems like there's some sort of anomaly in the design if that's the case.Right. If they dumped them in the ocean, fires wouldn't break out after landing. SpaceX might have a design issue to work out on disposing of Kerosene after flight, since this behavior is new as of the last two flights and has happened on both of them. It's not an accusation or a claim against the validity of booster recovery. Those who claim otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.
Or it’s a known issue and it’s not worth “fixing” because a block 3 stage requires refurbishment anyway.
I'm wondering if they're deliberately trying higher and higher energy descents and landings in an attempt to find out just how far they can push these cores before they can't be recovered. Given that they're getting quite a stockpile of used cores now, they can afford to waste them on empirical data-gathering exercises like this by deliberately exposing them to stresses that may make them unreusable.
Sure... But the whole trend of "do I get a cookie if I'm the first one who spots a problem"-posts is just a tad obsessive. Do they think that SpaceX is unaware or blind to the issue unless you point it out? And then people start rushing in to post about problems they imagine, just so they can be "first" to spot a problem, just in case. Is the core bent? Is there a buckle? Is a leg damaged? Is the an engine bell damaged? These are all examples from the last year, BTW... When the specific concerns turned out to be false.The kerosene fire is obviously not normal, but people do take that to the N'th degree as well.
Do we know the target orbit ?Could this have been a super sync and/or substantial reduction in inclination that would use something similar to a typical 5+ ton to GTO launch performance ?That could explain the type of landing performed.
QuoteTweet from Jonathan McDowell:Mugunghwa-5A (Koreasat-5A) and Falcon 9-45 Stage 2 tracked in 285 x 50185 km x 22.0 deg supersync transfer orbit, confirming launch success
Tweet from Jonathan McDowell:Mugunghwa-5A (Koreasat-5A) and Falcon 9-45 Stage 2 tracked in 285 x 50185 km x 22.0 deg supersync transfer orbit, confirming launch success
Quote from: gongora on 10/30/2017 06:31 pmPayload is about 3700kg.What is the source of this number? Thales own press release presented earlier in this thread says 3,500 kg. - Ed Kyle
Payload is about 3700kg.
Quote from: gongora on 10/30/2017 06:31 pmPayload is about 3700kg.What is the source of this number? Thales own press release presented earlier in this thread says 3,500 kg.
Fairing boat confirmed!!
Our fairing boat is, ... our, our drone ship is out in the sea three hundred forty nautical miles, go for today's launch.
Quote from: gongora on 10/30/2017 09:38 pmQuoteTweet from Jonathan McDowell:Mugunghwa-5A (Koreasat-5A) and Falcon 9-45 Stage 2 tracked in 285 x 50185 km x 22.0 deg supersync transfer orbit, confirming launch successDon’t know what the target was, but this is what was achieved.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Having arrived at one of Embry-Riddle University's observation decks at 3:00 PM, I stayed there for over a half-hour while the 44th Falcon 9 rocket launched the Koreasat 5A satellite 48 miles away from where I stood.Also took a couple photos of the aftermath.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/30/2017 09:04 pmI'm wondering if they're deliberately trying higher and higher energy descents and landings in an attempt to find out just how far they can push these cores before they can't be recovered. Given that they're getting quite a stockpile of used cores now, they can afford to waste them on empirical data-gathering exercises like this by deliberately exposing them to stresses that may make them unreusable.My thought as well, see aboveQuote from: Lar on 10/30/2017 06:52 pmwas this a planned "push the envelope" reentry? If so, that the stage is worse for wear and tear isn't necessarily bad.
There are multiple reasons for this but gaining flight-knowledge on "sideways" reentry of a rocket body is the main driver.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 06:58 amThere are multiple reasons for this but gaining flight-knowledge on "sideways" reentry of a rocket body is the main driver. If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to utilize titanium grid fins instead since they have greater control authority and would allow for even higher angles of attack?
Quote from: ugordan on 10/31/2017 07:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 06:58 amThere are multiple reasons for this but gaining flight-knowledge on "sideways" reentry of a rocket body is the main driver. If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to utilize titanium grid fins instead since they have greater control authority and would allow for even higher angles of attack?I reckon those Ti fins are VERY expensive, so they might not want to risk losing them if they don't need to.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2017 12:02 amQuote from: gongora on 10/30/2017 06:31 pmPayload is about 3700kg.What is the source of this number? Thales own press release presented earlier in this thread says 3,500 kg.SpaceX launch webcast today. At about the T-6:00 mark.
Quote from: Thorny on 10/31/2017 12:29 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2017 12:02 amQuote from: gongora on 10/30/2017 06:31 pmPayload is about 3700kg.What is the source of this number? Thales own press release presented earlier in this thread says 3,500 kg.SpaceX launch webcast today. At about the T-6:00 mark.Just to prove the announcer didn’t misspeak, Thales’ post launch press release also says 3,700 kg: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/space/press-release/another-thales-alenia-space-built-satellite-now-orbit#
Quote from: cppetrie on 10/31/2017 12:03 amQuote from: gongora on 10/30/2017 09:38 pmQuoteTweet from Jonathan McDowell:Mugunghwa-5A (Koreasat-5A) and Falcon 9-45 Stage 2 tracked in 285 x 50185 km x 22.0 deg supersync transfer orbit, confirming launch successDon’t know what the target was, but this is what was achieved. That's about 1617 m/s to GEO, by my estimation.
Any word on the fairing recovery? There was mention early in this discussion about the Mr. Stephen (?) possibly attempting recovery of the fairing, but that seems to have dropped off the radar.
Quote from: ugordan on 10/31/2017 07:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 06:58 amThere are multiple reasons for this but gaining flight-knowledge on "sideways" reentry of a rocket body is the main driver. If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to utilize titanium grid fins instead since they have greater control authority and would allow for even higher angles of attack?The Ti fins do have greater control authority, but the 'bear trap' leading edge actually reduces drag. Perhaps SpaceX have been re-thinking that aspect of the design?
Quote from: JamesH65 on 10/31/2017 07:40 amQuote from: ugordan on 10/31/2017 07:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 06:58 amThere are multiple reasons for this but gaining flight-knowledge on "sideways" reentry of a rocket body is the main driver. If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to utilize titanium grid fins instead since they have greater control authority and would allow for even higher angles of attack?I reckon those Ti fins are VERY expensive, so they might not want to risk losing them if they don't need to.Perhaps, but so are the stages themselves and they are apparently willing to risk losing them.
It's possible the titanium fins allow much greater body lift (this has been hinted at), but that that requires modifications to the structure of the booster we won't see until Block 5.
That appears he was talking about the core FH booster. They're using refurbished F9 boosters for the demo side boosters I thought, those would be block IV at best.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/01/2017 12:18 pmIt's possible the titanium fins allow much greater body lift (this has been hinted at), but that that requires modifications to the structure of the booster we won't see until Block 5.Elon mentioned FH required strengthening the booster, so given SpaceX's preference for commonality it would make sense for the stronger components to be part of block 5.
The second stage is in a super geosynchronous transfer orbit (SGTO). Perturbations by the Moon will soon decrease the stage's perigee and send it back into Earth's atmosphere where it will burn up.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 10/31/2017 09:28 amThe second stage is in a super geosynchronous transfer orbit (SGTO). Perturbations by the Moon will soon decrease the stage's perigee and send it back into Earth's atmosphere where it will burn up. Alternatively, could the lunar perturbations raise the perigee resulting in an orbit that would take much longer to decay?
Quote from: woods170 on 11/03/2017 12:32 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/03/2017 12:05 pmQuoteCrews are busy disconnecting the landing legs of the Falcon Booster.https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926434319006158848From the images it looks like the post-landing fire damage is superficial at best.Do you mean “at worst”?
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/03/2017 12:05 pmQuoteCrews are busy disconnecting the landing legs of the Falcon Booster.https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926434319006158848From the images it looks like the post-landing fire damage is superficial at best.
QuoteCrews are busy disconnecting the landing legs of the Falcon Booster.https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926434319006158848
Crews are busy disconnecting the landing legs of the Falcon Booster.
Or, more likely, the fuel came from the engines and flames merely crept up the side of the vehicle, essentially driven to that side by the wind.
Could there have been a leak there, or do propellant lines even pass through that set of connections? Or, more likely, the fuel came from the engines and flames merely crept up the side of the vehicle, essentially driven to that side by the wind.
The fire appears to have been on the side where the, what is it called, T-0 or ground umbilical was located. Could there have been a leak there, or do propellant lines even pass through that set of connections? Or, more likely, the fuel came from the engines and flames merely crept up the side of the vehicle, essentially driven to that side by the wind. - Ed Kyle
QuoteAt least one landing leg has been removed from the Falcon 9 Boosterhttps://twitter.com/nasa_nerd/status/926507819406422016
At least one landing leg has been removed from the Falcon 9 Booster
Apologies if this is old, but the KoreaSat 5 S1 leg attachments look different from what I’ve noticed before (circled in attached).(Great phot from @NASA_Nate posted here)
Some dark sooted spots on deck from the post-landing fire. What's with the rust-colored streak?
Quote from: cscott on 11/04/2017 11:22 pmSome dark sooted spots on deck from the post-landing fire. What's with the rust-colored streak?Anyone know what the fire suppression system entails? Water and RP-1 don’t exactly mix. Is it fresh water and foam to deal with petroleum fires?
QuoteSlower vehicles please keep to the left....
Slower vehicles please keep to the left....
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/07/2017 07:14 pmhttps://twitter.com/bob_richards/status/927967920185016321QuoteSlower vehicles please keep to the left....Could someone point out where this shot would've been taken? Thanks!
https://twitter.com/bob_richards/status/927967920185016321QuoteSlower vehicles please keep to the left....
Could someone point out where this shot would've been taken? Thanks!
January 9th, 2018A large European Aerospace manufacturer recently entrusted Bolloré Logistics to handle the transport and logistics of its satellite for a SpaceX launch into outer space.Close coordination between the Bolloré Logistics teams in Nice, Boston and Miami ensured that the complex mission of transporting the satellite along with Ground Service Equipment (GSE) from Nice, France to Cape Canaveral in Florida, US, was handled smoothly.This high-risk operation included three crucial steps:- The transport of the satellite and ground service equipment (GSE) by Antonov 124 from Nice to Cape Canaveralwith a brief stop in Boston for customs clearance where the Boston Import team worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security Port Supervisor to coordinate the customs entries. At the arrival of the AN-124 in Cape Canaveral, the Miami team provided local logistics support on-site at Kennedy Space Center for offloading operations.- The transport of the propellants by sea freight from Bremerhaven, Germany to Port Everglades, USAThe propellants were incorporated into the satellite before space launch. The Miami team handled the arrival at Port Everglades and transfer to the Kennedy Space Center.- The return of the material after the satellite launchThe scope of work included stuffing of the containers, special road convoy with escort from Kennedy Space Center to Port of Miami, sea transport to return 90% of the material (including empty space craft containers) and air transport for urgent material return.Bolloré Logistics has demonstrated their know-how and expertise to support such high-risk operation for the space industry in a high security environment and SpaceX successfully launched the satellite from the launch complex at NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
It looks like the most recent payload that would have been transported from Nice to Cape Canaveral for a SpaceX launch was Koreasat 5A?[BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS] SATELLITE TRANSPORTATION FROM FRANCE TO CAPE CANAVERAL FOR SPACEX LAUNCHQuoteJanuary 9th, 2018A large European Aerospace manufacturer recently entrusted Bolloré Logistics to handle the transport and logistics of its satellite for a SpaceX launch into outer space.Close coordination between the Bolloré Logistics teams in Nice, Boston and Miami ensured that the complex mission of transporting the satellite along with Ground Service Equipment (GSE) from Nice, France to Cape Canaveral in Florida, US, was handled smoothly.This high-risk operation included three crucial steps:- The transport of the satellite and ground service equipment (GSE) by Antonov 124 from Nice to Cape Canaveralwith a brief stop in Boston for customs clearance where the Boston Import team worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security Port Supervisor to coordinate the customs entries. At the arrival of the AN-124 in Cape Canaveral, the Miami team provided local logistics support on-site at Kennedy Space Center for offloading operations.- The transport of the propellants by sea freight from Bremerhaven, Germany to Port Everglades, USAThe propellants were incorporated into the satellite before space launch. The Miami team handled the arrival at Port Everglades and transfer to the Kennedy Space Center.- The return of the material after the satellite launchThe scope of work included stuffing of the containers, special road convoy with escort from Kennedy Space Center to Port of Miami, sea transport to return 90% of the material (including empty space craft containers) and air transport for urgent material return.Bolloré Logistics has demonstrated their know-how and expertise to support such high-risk operation for the space industry in a high security environment and SpaceX successfully launched the satellite from the launch complex at NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
What's that?They shipped their own propellants from Bremerhaven, Germany to Ft Lauderdale, and then drove or sent them by rail three hours north?They couldn't buy adequate propellant at the launch site?And I thought importing water from Fiji was odd....And then they drove the "stuffed" shipping containers and "urgent material" four hours back to Miami to ship back to Europe.Really?
It is not unusual to not use US sources for propellants. Spacex buys its propellant from Germany.
Quote from: Comga on 01/11/2018 04:19 amWhat's that?They shipped their own propellants from Bremerhaven, Germany to Ft Lauderdale, and then drove or sent them by rail three hours north?They couldn't buy adequate propellant at the launch site?And I thought importing water from Fiji was odd....And then they drove the "stuffed" shipping containers and "urgent material" four hours back to Miami to ship back to Europe.Really?That is how hazardous material is shipped. It is closest port that can handle the propellants. JWST propellants will go out the same port to Kourou.It is not unusual to not use US sources for propellants. Spacex buys its propellant from Germany.