Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION (Read 1132972 times)

Galactic Penguin SST · « **on:** 02/21/2014 07:00 am »

Discussion Thread for the SpaceX Falcon 9 / SES-9 mission.

Resources:

SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0

SpaceX News Articles (Recent):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/

=--=

SpaceX GENERAL Forum Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=45.0 - please use this for general questions NOT specific to this mission.

SpaceX MISSIONS Forum Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0 - this section is for everything specific to SpaceX missions.

SES-9 is a Boeing BSS-702HP satellite ordered back in October 2012: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/ic/sis/features.page?

LouScheffer · « **Reply #1 on:** 02/21/2014 12:51 pm »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/21/2014 07:00 am

Well the dice and moolah are definitely rolling in.....

Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes
SES adds another SpaceX Falcon 9: After yesterday's SES-10 for late 2016 over LatinAm, co. says AsiaPac SES-9 to launch on F9 in early 2015.

SES-9 is a Boeing BSS-702HP satellite ordered back in October 2012: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/ic/sis/features.page?

Wonder what the mass will be? One 702 was 5900 kg (Inmarsat-5), but Mexsat was 5400 kg. Presumably this will be at the very low end of the range, since the Falcon can't do any more, the satellite is designed for Xenon propuslsion, and it's got very high power solar panels.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702fleet.page

Herb Schaltegger · « **Reply #2 on:** 02/21/2014 02:09 pm »

Good question about the mass. Directv 10, 11 and 12 are based on the Boeing 702 bus as well, but massed over 6,000 kg at launch. However, the claimed "start of life" on-orbit mass, per the Boeing fact sheet released at the time, was only 3,700 kg. D10 and 12 were launched by Proton, so perhaps a lot of that mass was necessary due to the inclination of the launch site. D11 was launched by SeaLaunch so that wouldn't apply, obviously.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #3 on:** 02/21/2014 02:11 pm »

Lots of complication and flexibility, here. Lots of that mass must be propellant for orbital inclination, and if you take your time, you can use electric propulsion to do orbit insertion, so that gives the customer a lot of margin for negotiating with launch providers.

baldusi · « **Reply #4 on:** 02/21/2014 05:41 pm »

Ariane 5, Proton-M and Sea Launch all quote the same delta-v deficit to GSO: 1,500m/s. Save for the American launchers 1,500m/s is the stock GTO. Supersynchronous might earn you a few percents, but I still can't believe the Falcon 9 v1.1 would do so much.

baldusi · « **Reply #5 on:** 02/21/2014 06:10 pm »

Also by Peter B. Selding:

Quote

Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes 3h
SES: 'SES-9 sat to launch on SpaceX Falcon 9 will weigh ~5,330kg at launch into a sub-synchronous orbit.' Nearing rocket's capacity ceiling.

So this will be a subsynchronous mission.

And

Quote

Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes 7h

SES's Bausch: 2 new deals w/ SpaceX Falcon9 part of original contract (1 firm, 3 options) including SES 8 in Dec. 1 more sat left to assign.

We can expect an additional SES/SpaceX launch.

sweet-d · « **Reply #6 on:** 02/23/2014 02:32 am »

As always more good news for spacex

woods170 · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/11/2014 07:38 am »

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40165ses-books-spacex-falcon-9-for-hybrid-satellite%E2%80%99s-debut

Quote

Speaking here April 10 during the Space Access conference organized by Astech Paris Region, Olivier Lebrethon, SES manager for new launch risks...<snip>...said that for SES-9, the company will use both the electric propulsion and chemical propulsion systems to reach final geostationary position about three months after launch — much longer than using chemical only, but shorter than an all-electric solution. The satellite is scheduled for launch in 2015.

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #8 on:** 01/22/2015 02:28 pm »

Interesting to see that the launch of SES-9 may use the higher thrust Merlin 1D engines.

Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
SES: We may skip spring SpaceX launch slot & wait till mid-year to let someone else be 1st using Falcon 9 main engine in full-thrust regime.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #9 on:** 01/22/2015 02:39 pm »

What does that even mean? Merlin 1D rev 2?

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #10 on:** 01/22/2015 02:45 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 01/22/2015 02:39 pm

What does that even mean? Merlin 1D rev 2?

Didn't Elon Musk said that the Merlin 1D as is could actually go for a higher thrust soon?

ugordan · « **Reply #11 on:** 01/22/2015 02:57 pm »

Huh. The elusive F9 performance numbers just got even more elusive. Real vs. published numbers vs. caveats going along with those published numbers...

Also, the guys working F9 certification will love this change, I'm sure

Jarnis · « **Reply #12 on:** 01/22/2015 03:24 pm »

Heh, Merlin 1Ds remind me of today's processors and graphics cards.

"What is the performance of this thing?" - "Well, it depends..."

Kabloona · « **Reply #13 on:** 01/22/2015 03:26 pm »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/22/2015 02:45 pm

Quote from: kevin-rf on 01/22/2015 02:39 pm
What does that even mean? Merlin 1D rev 2?

Didn't Elon Musk said that the Merlin 1D as is could actually go for a higher thrust soon?

Yes, it sounds like the 165klbf sea level thrust uprating discussed here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32983.msg1131598#msg1131598

And the original quote from Elon referencing the 165klbf number:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32998.msg1130641#msg1130641

docmordrid · « **Reply #14 on:** 01/22/2015 04:20 pm »

The fabeled 16.67 tonne NLS-2 no holds barred F9?

Dudely · « **Reply #15 on:** 01/22/2015 04:30 pm »

It is likely that this increase is coming now because of propellant densification? That is, they wish to keep the same T/W, but with more total fuel available?

Lars-J · « **Reply #16 on:** 01/22/2015 05:01 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 01/22/2015 02:57 pm

Huh. The elusive F9 performance numbers just got even more elusive. Real vs. published numbers vs. caveats going along with those published numbers...

Also, the guys working F9 certification will love this change, I'm sure

Upgrades happen. RS-68A didn't cause the entire Delta IV to be re-certified, and this would be even less of a change.

macpacheco · « **Reply #17 on:** 01/23/2015 03:16 am »

Quote from: Lars-J on 01/22/2015 05:01 pm

Quote from: ugordan on 01/22/2015 02:57 pm
Huh. The elusive F9 performance numbers just got even more elusive. Real vs. published numbers vs. caveats going along with those published numbers...

Also, the guys working F9 certification will love this change, I'm sure

Upgrades happen. RS-68A didn't cause the entire Delta IV to be re-certified, and this would be even less of a change.

Do we know there are changes to M1D in order to get higher thrust levels ?
If there aren't, I don't see how this would change certification, DoD might consider those higher thrust levels uncertified initially, pending enough successful launches using higher thrust levels before certifying that.
If there are changes, the unchanged version of the engine would be available for DoD launches. They don't have to certify the new version until there is enough launch data to certify this mod.
The real issue is if this causes reliability problems. I'm sure SpaceX has tested those higher thrust levels at the stand (or the new version) to exhaustion before using that in a launch.

MP99 · « **Reply #18 on:** 01/23/2015 09:03 am »

Quote from: macpacheco on 01/23/2015 03:16 am

Quote from: Lars-J on 01/22/2015 05:01 pm
Quote from: ugordan on 01/22/2015 02:57 pm
Huh. The elusive F9 performance numbers just got even more elusive. Real vs. published numbers vs. caveats going along with those published numbers...

Also, the guys working F9 certification will love this change, I'm sure

Upgrades happen. RS-68A didn't cause the entire Delta IV to be re-certified, and this would be even less of a change.

Do we know there are changes to M1D in order to get higher thrust levels ?
If there aren't, I don't see how this would change certification, DoD might consider those higher thrust levels uncertified initially, pending enough successful launches using higher thrust levels before certifying that.
If there are changes, the unchanged version of the engine would be available for DoD launches. They don't have to certify the new version until there is enough launch data to certify this mod.
The real issue is if this causes reliability problems. I'm sure SpaceX has tested those higher thrust levels at the stand (or the new version) to exhaustion before using that in a launch.

Certification is a government thing.

This is simply a commercial organisation assessing a risk, and costs associated with minimising that risk. As you say "the real issue is if this causes reliability problems."

Running the M1D @ 112% looks like it will reduce margins in both engines and vehicle structure. It occurs to me that recovering an intact stage would allow engineers to look for any signs of margins being less than expected, which could reduce the risk from increased thrust.

Cheers, Martin

MP99 · « **Reply #19 on:** 01/23/2015 09:05 am »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/22/2015 02:28 pm

Interesting to see that the launch of SES-9 may use the higher thrust Merlin 1D engines.

Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
SES: We may skip spring SpaceX launch slot & wait till mid-year to let someone else be 1st using Falcon 9 main engine in full-thrust regime.

Hmm, sounds like a 112% flight is closer than we'd realised.

Cheers, Martin