Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 08/07/2018 07:58 amQuote from: Raul on 08/07/2018 07:54 amTwo newly cataloged objects:2018-064A 2018-08-07 06:57 UTC - 193/29503km/27.06°2018-064B 2018-08-07 06:59 UTC - 181/29527km/27.04°I get a delta-V of 1923.3 m/s to reach GEO.Enter initial perigee height (km): 193Enter initial apogee height (km): 29503Enter required inclination change (deg): 27.06theta1 = 0.08 deg, dv1 = 119.7 m/stheta2 = 26.98 deg, dv2 = 1803.6 m/sdv = 1923.3 m/sI get almost identical numbers
Quote from: Raul on 08/07/2018 07:54 amTwo newly cataloged objects:2018-064A 2018-08-07 06:57 UTC - 193/29503km/27.06°2018-064B 2018-08-07 06:59 UTC - 181/29527km/27.04°I get a delta-V of 1923.3 m/s to reach GEO.Enter initial perigee height (km): 193Enter initial apogee height (km): 29503Enter required inclination change (deg): 27.06theta1 = 0.08 deg, dv1 = 119.7 m/stheta2 = 26.98 deg, dv2 = 1803.6 m/sdv = 1923.3 m/s
Two newly cataloged objects:2018-064A 2018-08-07 06:57 UTC - 193/29503km/27.06°2018-064B 2018-08-07 06:59 UTC - 181/29527km/27.04°
I'll put in a GTO-1925 subsync guess as to where this one ends up in orbit... SSL has got this - build it to fit ASDS F9 for lowest cost to orbit - thing down... And SpaceX is not going to push the landing margin too tight, in my opinion...
Quote from: soltasto on 08/07/2018 09:38 amQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 08/07/2018 07:58 amQuote from: Raul on 08/07/2018 07:54 amTwo newly cataloged objects:2018-064A 2018-08-07 06:57 UTC - 193/29503km/27.06°2018-064B 2018-08-07 06:59 UTC - 181/29527km/27.04°I get a delta-V of 1923.3 m/s to reach GEO.Enter initial perigee height (km): 193Enter initial apogee height (km): 29503Enter required inclination change (deg): 27.06theta1 = 0.08 deg, dv1 = 119.7 m/stheta2 = 26.98 deg, dv2 = 1803.6 m/sdv = 1923.3 m/sI get almost identical numbers Quote from: John Alan on 07/23/2018 10:21 pmI'll put in a GTO-1925 subsync guess as to where this one ends up in orbit... SSL has got this - build it to fit ASDS F9 for lowest cost to orbit - thing down... And SpaceX is not going to push the landing margin too tight, in my opinion...
Anyone know why they took the legs off? Block 5 was supposed to be a "stow and go" landing leg configuration?
Quote from: DeanG1967 on 08/14/2018 11:37 amAnyone know why they took the legs off? Block 5 was supposed to be a "stow and go" landing leg configuration?Last time they tested folding one leg and gained valuable new info on what to improve to make it really work.They then lowered that leg and removed them all. Since they removed them from 2 later launches. Clearly the improvements have not found their way to an launched core yet.a little more patients is required...
Quote from: Jakusb on 08/14/2018 12:29 pmQuote from: DeanG1967 on 08/14/2018 11:37 amAnyone know why they took the legs off? Block 5 was supposed to be a "stow and go" landing leg configuration?Last time they tested folding one leg and gained valuable new info on what to improve to make it really work.They then lowered that leg and removed them all. Since they removed them from 2 later launches. Clearly the improvements have not found their way to an launched core yet.a little more patients is required... Let's be honest, that's what all the previous block versions were for.
This is the first time they've ever attempted to fold the legs up post flight and landing. How do you imagine they were going to be testing that on previous blocks which didn't include the new leg design? I'm sure they'd already practiced with mock-ups and test articles, but none of those had actually experienced flight yet. So, if they've found out that reality doesn't quite match their predictions, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there may yet be minor modifications needed to fully implement the change.
Maybe. Or maybe their stage transporter is not designed to handle the legs still attached.
Quote from: Semmel on 08/15/2018 09:29 amMaybe. Or maybe their stage transporter is not designed to handle the legs still attached.It looks as if it can handle a stage with folded legs.
Quote from: vanoord on 08/16/2018 09:09 amQuote from: Semmel on 08/15/2018 09:29 amMaybe. Or maybe their stage transporter is not designed to handle the legs still attached.It looks as if it can handle a stage with folded legs.It can and has already.
Quote from: stcks on 08/16/2018 12:14 pmQuote from: vanoord on 08/16/2018 09:09 amQuote from: Semmel on 08/15/2018 09:29 amMaybe. Or maybe their stage transporter is not designed to handle the legs still attached.It looks as if it can handle a stage with folded legs.It can and has already.Can you point me to a picture where it shows the transport of a F9 first stage with legs attached? I am not aware of any such case. And I dont mean the TEL.
Quote from: Semmel on 08/17/2018 07:28 amCan you point me to a picture where it shows the transport of a F9 first stage with legs attached? I am not aware of any such case. And I dont mean the TEL.No can do sorry. You'll just have trust me. It was the transporter and there was a leg attached.
Can you point me to a picture where it shows the transport of a F9 first stage with legs attached? I am not aware of any such case. And I dont mean the TEL.