Quote from: swervin on 10/19/2017 02:10 pmPutting myself in Iridium's shoes: why do this?Again, I'm all for it, just curious on the business case / motivation to do so.Iridium is doing this so they can fly sooner than if they waited for new cores. That saves them money, rather than having birds on the ground longer waiting to go on orbit. That is the business case and motivation.
Putting myself in Iridium's shoes: why do this?Again, I'm all for it, just curious on the business case / motivation to do so.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/19/2017 01:40 pmMaybe Project Zuma has requested a fresh core. Given the tight schedule, SpaceX had to reallocate the Iridium-N4 core but were able to talk Iridium into accepting a reused core.The 'needs' of the Zuma customer do not make a business case for Iridium, in my opinion. Putting myself in Iridium's shoes: why do this?
Maybe Project Zuma has requested a fresh core. Given the tight schedule, SpaceX had to reallocate the Iridium-N4 core but were able to talk Iridium into accepting a reused core.
The accelerated use of previously flown boosters will also help accelerate the adoption of reused boosters by industry as a normal thing and not exceptional.
Quote from: abaddon on 10/19/2017 03:30 pmThe accelerated use of previously flown boosters will also help accelerate the adoption of reused boosters by industry as a normal thing and not exceptional.This is somewhat circular logic - not wrong, just circular in a way that implies self fueling exponential growth in fraction of reuse missions. Although it has to s-curve and level out somewhere short of 100% since at least some boosters have to be new.
Still confused about RTLS thing. Wasn't RTLS to the new pad planned up until this booster change? I thought it was ready to go. New mfg v. flight-proven should make no difference.
Would this S1 now go to a drone ship?
Tweet from Matt Desch:Comfort that risk <= than new and more schedule certainty to complete 5 more launches over next 8 months. Cost is better, but not driver.
It's interesting that there will be apparently no boostback burn during the booster landing of this mission.Planned ASDS recovery position is as far as 513km downrange, similarly like in Cassiope water landing attempt.Iridium-1 block 3 B1029.1 had landing position 372km downrange. Iridium-2 326km and Iridium-3 244km.In the Map
Quote from: Raul on 10/23/2017 07:08 pmIt's interesting that there will be apparently no boostback burn during the booster landing of this mission.Planned ASDS recovery position is as far as 513km downrange, similarly like in Cassiope water landing attempt.Iridium-1 block 3 B1029.1 had landing position 372km downrange. Iridium-2 326km and Iridium-3 244km.In the MapAre you sure there's no boostback burn during Iridium-NEXT F4?I thought all previous Iridium-NEXT missions used a partial boostback burn.
Quote from: Raul on 10/23/2017 07:08 pmIt's interesting that there will be apparently no boostback burn during the booster landing of this mission.Planned ASDS recovery position is as far as 513km downrange, similarly like in Cassiope water landing attempt.Iridium-1 block 3 B1029.1 had landing position 372km downrange. Iridium-2 326km and Iridium-3 244km.In the MapMy theory - this is Block 4 - will be reused more than once - reduce unnecessary wear on the rocket.
They decided the fuel they would use for partial boostback is better used for a beefed-up re-entry burn? ie more likely to get a re-usable booster back that way?
Quote from: Raul on 10/23/2017 07:08 pmIt's interesting that there will be apparently no boostback burn during the booster landing of this mission.Planned ASDS recovery position is as far as 513km downrange, similarly like in Cassiope water landing attempt.Iridium-1 block 3 B1029.1 had landing position 372km downrange. Iridium-2 326km and Iridium-3 244km.In the MapIridium 2 was the flew with the Titanium grid fins. (I think it's the only booster, to date that has done so.) They may be interested in pushing those a little harder to see what happens.