Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/20/2014 08:34 am
NSF Threads for SES-10 : Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34057.0) / Updates (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.0) / F9-23 Core Reuse (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40086.0) / L2 January 2017 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41538.0) / L2 February 2017 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42086.0) / L2 March-April (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42387.0) / ASDS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=66.0) / Party (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42585.0)
NSF Articles for SES-10 :
SES-10 static fire aims SpaceX for history books & first core stage re-flight (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/ses-10-static-fire-spacex-first-core-re-flight/)
SpaceX set for historic Falcon 9 re-flight with SES-10 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-historic-falcon-9-re-flight-ses-10/)
SpaceX opens new era for spaceflight with successful core stage reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-new-spaceflight-successful-core-reuse/)
Successful launch on March 30, 2017 at 1827 EDT (2227 UTC) from LC-39A at KSC. First stage 1021-2 landed on ASDS.
SpaceX press kit for SES-10 mission is attached.
Quote
[Toulouse, 16/01/2017] (https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/airbus-defence-and-space-ships-ses-10-telecom-satellite-to-launch-site/)- SES-10, the 10th Eurostar satellite built by Airbus Defence and Space for Luxembourg-based satellite operator SES, has left the Airbus cleanrooms in Toulouse, France, and has been shipped to Cape Canaveral for its forthcoming launch by SpaceX.
SES-10 is the 45th satellite based on the highly reliable Eurostar E3000 platform and the 10th to use electric propulsion for station-keeping. It will have a launch mass of 5,300 kg and spacecraft power of 13 kW.
SES-10 will be positioned at the 67 degrees West orbital position, pursuant to an agreement between the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) and SES. The satellite will provide SES with replacement and additional capacity for direct-to-home TV broadcasting, enterprise and mobility services to Central America and South America, Mexico and the Caribbean. It will carry a payload of 55 high-power Ku-band transponder equivalents.
SES Press Release (Aug. 30, 2016): SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160830005483/en/SES-10-Launching-Orbit-SpaceXs-Flight-Proven-Falcon-9)
Youtube (Nov. 4, 2016): SES-10: SES and Airbus work like a team (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m_uovkYOfo)
SES-10 at SES.com (https://www.ses.com/network/satellites/363) / SES-10 at Gunter's Space Page (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-10.htm)
Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
SpaceX News Articles (Recent) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/) / SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0)
SpaceX Dragon Articles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon/) / SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0)
L2 SpaceX Section (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 02/20/2014 08:52 am
Or is this the SES flight that is on the manifest for 2015 with a F9 v1.1?
I wasn't aware of any satellite assigned to that flight so I would guess that this flight has been changed from F9 to FH.
http://www.spacex.com/missions
All other articles are running this as a flight on a F9 vehicle.
Could it be the F9 v1.1 with increased performance thanks to engine upgrade?
http://www.satnews.com/story.php?number=1041848497
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/20/2014 09:05 am
Post by: skybum on 02/20/2014 01:29 pm
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2014 02:02 pm
That ups the count to 4 Falcon Heavy missions on the manifest. 1 demo, 1 Air Force, 1 Intelsat, and now this SES.
Post by: guckyfan on 02/20/2014 02:27 pm
SES say they fly on Falcon 9.
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2014 02:33 pm
http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2014/17737688Actually, that makes sense. The spacecraft has electric thrusters (as well as chemical), so it can tolerate a lower altitude initial insertion to GTO and still get basically the same mass to GSO. The price difference between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy is pretty big and Falcon 9 is proven, so it's worth a few months of thrusting and on-orbit checks.
SES say they fly on Falcon 9.
This is going to be pretty common... Electric propulsion is now basically standard, so spacecraft operators will have significant leeway for negotiating a cheaper launch vehicle even if it doesn't have a high-energy upper stage.
Post by: newpylong on 02/20/2014 02:49 pm
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2014 02:58 pm
F9 not capable of 5 tons to GTO, so it has to be a FH."GTO" isn't a single orbit. SpaceX's Falcon 9 can get ~4.9t to GTO with 1800m/s "to go" to GSO. Perhaps it's like 1950m/s "to go" for this orbit.
That's only like 30kg of Xenon to get down to the 1800m/s "to go" orbit, and a couple weeks of ion-thruster orbit-boosting (depending on exactly how good their thrusters are).
Post by: Danderman on 02/20/2014 03:00 pm
F9 not capable of 5 tons to GTO, so it has to be a FH.
The article says that the launch mass of the satellite will be 5 tons, which is 10% of the capability of FH. I suspect the bottom line is that Space News is wrong.
However, we should not discard a third possibility, that Elon is promising some enhanced variant of Falcon 9 to customers in a couple of years.
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2014 03:10 pm
It takes just ~80kg of Xenon to get from 1900m/s "to go" to 1500 m/s "to go" and about a month and a half of thrusting. 1500m/s is the "standard" GTO trajectory. A month of extra thrusting time is well worth $20 million cheaper launch on a proven rocket.
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/20/2014 03:46 pm
Quote
launch mass on Falcon 9 is expected to be about 5,300 kilograms
Post by: Skyrocket on 02/20/2014 04:29 pm
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/20/2014 04:57 pm
F9 not capable of 5 tons to GTO, so it has to be a FH.
The article says that the launch mass of the satellite will be 5 tons, which is 10% of the capability of FH. I suspect the bottom line is that Space News is wrong.
However, we should not discard a third possibility, that Elon is promising some enhanced variant of Falcon 9 to customers in a couple of years.
With all the reserve capacity, might this flight also be the first attempt to recover a 2nd Stage?
Post by: Danderman on 02/20/2014 05:20 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/20/2014 05:30 pm
Post by: Danderman on 02/20/2014 06:03 pm
I think TrueBlueWitt ment if they use a Heavy instead.
I think TrueBlueWitt ment if they use a Heavy instead.
Actually, a GTO mission would be a worst case test of recovery of a second stage, since the thermal conditions would be extreme.
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/20/2014 06:04 pm
I think TrueBlueWitt ment if they use a Heavy instead.
Correct, I meant if it actually launches on F9H.
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 02/20/2014 06:09 pm
I think TrueBlueWitt ment if they use a Heavy instead.I think TrueBlueWitt ment if they use a Heavy instead.
Actually, a GTO mission would be a worst case test of recovery of a second stage, since the thermal conditions would be extreme.
Wouldn't they have enough margin, given it's such a light load on a F9H, to propulsively brake to nearer LEO re-entry velocity prior to re-entry if they chose?
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/20/2014 06:12 pm
De-orbit from GTO only requires a few Draco's.
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 02/20/2014 08:26 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/39558updated-ses-books-falcon-9-for-2016-launch?utm_content=buffer96acd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Post by: Wigles on 02/20/2014 09:09 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/20/2014 09:35 pm
Post by: newpylong on 02/21/2014 12:52 am
SpaceNews reports that it is in fact riding uphill on Falcon 9, NOT Falcon Heavy. At 5.3 mt, its either not going to anywhere close to a traditional 1500 m/s GTO, or SpaceX is sandbagging their advertised capacity of 4.85 mt to GTO.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/39558updated-ses-books-falcon-9-for-2016-launch?utm_content=buffer96acd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
No the article says they will use thrusters to raise orbit. So robotbeat is right.
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/21/2014 01:33 am
SpaceNews reports that it is in fact riding uphill on Falcon 9, NOT Falcon Heavy. At 5.3 mt, its either not going to anywhere close to a traditional 1500 m/s GTO, or SpaceX is sandbagging their advertised capacity of 4.85 mt to GTO.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/39558updated-ses-books-falcon-9-for-2016-launch?utm_content=buffer96acd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
No the article says they will use thrusters to raise orbit. So robotbeat is right.
No, the article says "SES and Airbus Defence and Space said the satellite would employ chemical propulsion to raise its orbit from the Falcon 9’s drop-off point to final geostationary location, and electric propulsion to maintain itself stably in orbit once at its operating position."
So it is NOT using electrical thrusters to get into GEO, implying it *is* in a more or less traditional GTO orbit. So I suspect that SpaceX experience with the first two mission allows them to be confident of a larger payload. It doesn't take much; a very slightly better than minimum ISP, or slightly smaller residuals, or both, could easily account for the extra 450 kg.
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2014 01:34 am
Post by: beancounter on 02/21/2014 03:13 am
I think TrueBlueWitt ment if they use a Heavy instead.I think TrueBlueWitt ment if they use a Heavy instead.
Actually, a GTO mission would be a worst case test of recovery of a second stage, since the thermal conditions would be extreme.
Wouldn't they have enough margin, given it's such a light load on a F9H, to propulsively brake to nearer LEO re-entry velocity prior to re-entry if they chose?
Hi. What's with the F9H? It's confusing. There's F9 v1.1 or just F9 and there's FH. Please use the appropriate designation.
Cheers,
Post by: SpaceDom on 02/21/2014 04:05 am
I am not a specialist in trajectory but what happen in mass capacity if Falcon 9 V1.1 is launched from Boca Chica Beach Tx. ? Flight is in 2016, if Spacex take a decision quickly, the pad will be ready ?
Post by: Comga on 02/21/2014 04:54 am
Hi
I am not a specialist in trajectory but what happen in mass capacity if Falcon 9 V1.1 is launched from Boca Chica Beach Tx. ? Flight is in 2016, if Spacex take a decision quickly, the pad will be ready ?
Welcome to the forum.
A Texas launch site is well out. 2016 is really pretty soon.
Check out how long it took to get the pad up and running at Vandenberg, and that didn't require SpaceX to create any launch support facilities like radar and telecom, never mind bringing in electric power, water, internet, etc.
Post by: Lars_J on 02/21/2014 05:07 am
F9 not capable of 5 tons to GTO, so it has to be a FH.
The article says that the launch mass of the satellite will be 5 tons, which is 10% of the capability of FH. I suspect the bottom line is that Space News is wrong.
However, we should not discard a third possibility, that Elon is promising some enhanced variant of Falcon 9 to customers in a couple of years.
Some have speculated that SpaceX is "sandbagging" the true performance numbers for the F9v1.1 (when comparing to Nasa NLS II figures) - Or more likely, the numbers on the SpaceX might already take into account stage 1 reuse, as others have speculated. (Both the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 missions did apparently reserve some propellant for restart tests)
Now that those two GTO missions are done, they clearly know the true performance of the LV to a much greater degree than earlier - so if they are comfortable with a GTO payload of this size, presumably it can be done.
Post by: PerW on 02/21/2014 06:13 am
"SpaceX: Falcon 9 can lift 5,300kg to GTO. Published 4,850kg max included 450kg we reserved for ourselves. So 5,300kg SES-10 fits on F9."
So i guess the first tweet about using FH was not right then? Interesting any how.
Post by: Kaputnik on 02/21/2014 07:48 am
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/21/2014 08:14 am
Does that include any margin for stage recovery, I wonder?
Probably not in my opinion.
Post by: Sohl on 02/21/2014 12:58 pm
Does that include any margin for stage recovery, I wonder?
Probably not in my opinion.
Mine too. Maybe go legless and set thrusters to full. 8)
Post by: MP99 on 02/21/2014 03:09 pm
Does that include any margin for stage recovery, I wonder?
Probably not in my opinion.
Doesn't sound like they're going to have much in the way of margins, even for an expendable flight.
SES may accept risk (small, I hope) of a bit of a shortfall in the dV-to-GTO if something goes wrong. Will be interesting to hear, as the launch approaches, whether this flight is at risk of under-performing in event of, eg, first stage engine out.
cheers, Martin
Post by: Mader Levap on 02/21/2014 07:36 pm
Post by: Joffan on 02/21/2014 08:59 pm
(Both the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 missions did apparently reserve some propellant for restart tests)
Or perhaps the reserve was for engine-out and other contingencies - once the contingencies did not arise, it was then free for some restart testing.
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2014 09:05 pm
...my point is that even with engine-out or a performance short-fall, it wouldn't necessarily be a complete loss for SES (pretending for the moment that they don't have insurance... which they would have).
...They'd have to time the thrusting periods right, though, which would take a lot longer than just thrusting constantly, though... You really wouldn't want to do this operationally, at least not unless you had a bigger array and better thrusters.
EDIT:Such a performance shortfall happened in the past with an Ariane 5 partial failure, with an electric propulsion system that I believe shares heritage with SES's bird: http://erps.spacegrant.org/uploads/images/images/iepc_articledownload_1988-2007/2003index/0096-0303iepc-full.pdf
The combination of chemical and electric propulsion eventually saved the mission. Electric propulsion adds a lot of flexibility and robustness to these sorts of missions.... As long as you get into orbit!
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/21/2014 11:35 pm
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 04:19 am
While it could make GSO if a performance shortfall occurs, overcoming a performance shortfall will consume Xenon and reduce the operational lifetime of the satellite. SEP is not free.Isn't that exactly what I said? ;)
Post by: Zannanza on 02/22/2014 05:34 am
While it could make GSO if a performance shortfall occurs, overcoming a performance shortfall will consume Xenon and reduce the operational lifetime of the satellite. SEP is not free.Just did a quick search
1kg of Xenon costs ~$1200 and sending 1kg of Xenon to space on F9 costs $4,109
not a big deal for aerospace contracts, especially when you consider the extra cost of switching to a FH (FH can do a duo or even triple for the heaviest comm sats with its advertised 21,200 kg capacity to GTO)
also, electric propulsion has terribly high isp when compared with chemicals therefore the same delta v can be achieved with much much less fuel, just that you need to be patient.
Post by: faramund on 02/22/2014 06:12 am
Post by: guckyfan on 02/22/2014 06:56 am
I think when people talk about the cost of SEP, they also add in the opportunity cost of lost revenues because of the time it takes to reach the correct orbit. They also talk about concerns about spending much longer passing through the Van Allen belts.
I guess that is why at least some designs use both. Chemical propulsion for getting from GTO to GSO or at least near and SEP for station keeping. So even with some underperformance they at least should get ouf of much of the Van Allen Belt fast.
Post by: Avron on 02/22/2014 12:16 pm
I think when people talk about the cost of SEP, they also add in the opportunity cost of lost revenues because of the time it takes to reach the correct orbit. They also talk about concerns about spending much longer passing through the Van Allen belts.
I guess that is why at least some designs use both. Chemical propulsion for getting from GTO to GSO or at least near and SEP for station keeping. So even with some underperformance they at least should get ouf of much of the Van Allen Belt fast.
In terms of station keeping, can that be done while the sat is operational, as it sounds like an option using the FH capabilities and more Xenon attached to the sat ( not sure how) to provide sat operators much improved flexibility. 2016 is some time out, this maybe there is chance to design in this additional Xenon capability
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 02/25/2014 09:12 am
(Both the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 missions did apparently reserve some propellant for restart tests)
Has this been documented somewhere properly?
Post by: Comga on 02/25/2014 09:00 pm
(Both the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 missions did apparently reserve some propellant for restart tests)
Has this been documented somewhere properly?
We were told the opposite. Musk said that SpaceX did not reserve capacity on those flights.
Just because they relit the engine doesn't mean that they reserved propellant.
edit: typo
Post by: woods170 on 04/11/2014 07:42 am
Quote
The two satellites, SES-9 and SES-10, both weigh about 5,300 kilograms and carry a mix of electric and chemical propellant systems. The question is, what tradeoffs is SES making to be able to fit their launches on the Falcon 9?
<snip>
For SES-10, built by Airbus Defence and Space, only the chemical propulsion system will be used for its Falcon-9 launch set for 2016. To compensate for the Falcon-9’s limits, the satellite will carry larger-than-usual chemical propellant tanks and make an extra couple of orbit-raising burns, meaning the time to final position will not be that much longer than with chemical propellant only.
Post by: gongora on 08/02/2016 02:57 pm
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/760380210835550208)QuoteSES: We expect SES-10 satellite, w/ 27 incremental xponders + replacement of AMC-3/-4 over LatAm, to launch in October on SpaceX Falcon 9.
Post by: jpo234 on 08/30/2016 07:35 am
SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ses-10-launching-orbit-spacexs-072200113.html)
Post by: NaN on 08/30/2016 07:49 am
SpaceX signs first customer for launch of a reused rocket (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-20160829-snap-story.html)
SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ses-10-launching-orbit-spacexs-072200113.html)
We've been hearing rumors for a while, exciting to see it in print!
And indeed the official preferred term for a used rocket is "flight-proven". It shows up no fewer than 6 times in the Yahoo/Business Wire article.
Post by: Kaputnik on 08/30/2016 08:55 am
Post by: Mariusuiram on 08/30/2016 09:08 am
Has anybody confirmed which core is being used for this flight?
I believe it is the CRS-8 core which is what people expected. But dont have a direct source other than Echologic on reddit.
Post by: jpo234 on 08/30/2016 09:21 am
Has anybody confirmed which core is being used for this flight?
23
From the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-20160829-snap-story.html):
Quote from: Los Angeles Times
SES’ satellite will launch on a first-stage booster that landed in April after delivering supplies to the International Space Station. That was the first rocket to land on a floating droneship.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/30/2016 09:42 am
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/30/2016 09:47 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2016 10:33 am
SpaceX signs first customer for launch of a reused rocket (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-20160829-snap-story.html)
SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ses-10-launching-orbit-spacexs-072200113.html)
Might as well stock up the fridge for September and October things are going to get crazy! :)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2016 10:57 am
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/30/2016 12:05 pm
Why do I think that this is possible? Because SES have been talking about flying SES-10 on a recycled booster for a while. They may have been planning on this and had the spacecraft assembled appropriately.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2016 12:33 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37220074
Post by: rockets4life97 on 08/30/2016 12:57 pm
The BBC is reporting that the booster was sent to McGregor and re-fired.
The LA Times is reporting that all of the engines were removed from the booster and sent to McGregor for individual testing. After the engines were re-certified, they were put back into the booster and then the whole booster went to McGregor for a test firing.
Both stories are compatible if the longer version (LA Times) is true.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2016 12:59 pm
Jonathan Amos @BBCAmos 5m5 minutes ago
@NASASpaceflight @iainkun That's what SES told me: April 2016 mission to re-supply ISS. Has to be CRS-8. Any change to that, let me know ;-)
Post by: AncientU on 08/30/2016 01:11 pm
At 5300kg to GTO, this will most likely final flight of this booster. Even if they recover to barge it may not fly again.
Not sure there is evidence for that.
The 'life leader' (0024) is being refired many times, and improvements to the operation have been implemented.
I suspect they are catching these GTO flights with an intent to reuse the boosters and not just collect data.
SES quote, if read literally, might be a hint:
Quote
Halliwell told investors this year that SES wanted to be the first commercial satellite operator to fly the same rocket twice.
SES-10 and 11?
Post by: envy887 on 08/30/2016 01:25 pm
Quote
The landed first-stages go through extensive testing at Cape Canaveral, including careful inspections of the entire booster, and individual engine tests in Texas. The engines are then put back in the vehicle. Before launch, the booster will undergo a static test fire.
I don't see anything about a full stage firing at McGregor. The "static test fire" will on-pad at LC-40 per normal SpaceX procedure.
The BBC article says:
Quote
This drone ship, appropriately named Of Course I Still Love You, then brought the rocket stage into port, from where it was sent to the SpaceX testing facility in McGregor, Texas.
The booster was put on a stand and its nine engines fired again to prove their flight worthiness.
IIRC, the only used booster to be fired at McGregor was the JCSAT-14 stage. Do we have any record of the CRS-8 stage on the way to McGregor or being fired there? Maybe someone can ping @BBCAmos to see how he confirmed it.
Post by: Mader Levap on 08/30/2016 01:38 pm
Post by: e of pi on 08/30/2016 01:40 pm
SES quote, if read literally, might be a hint:As far as I know (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-ses-idUSKCN0VW2O7), that was from February during the leadup to the SES-9 launch, when the implication would have been reusing the SES-9 core for this SES-10 flight. Since that failed, I guess they're taking the next landed core--CRS-8 (and one with a less-aggressive original entry profile). While SES might have an interest in reusing the core from SES-10 on a third flight if it lands successfully again, I think it's worth avoiding reading too much into an older statement.QuoteHalliwell told investors this year that SES wanted to be the first commercial satellite operator to fly the same rocket twice.
SES-10 and 11?
Post by: gongora on 08/30/2016 02:21 pm
This is is probably just my optimism at work but, if SES-10 has its own boost motor (presumably expended after GOI), then SpaceX might be able to negotiate a lower S/C Sep altitude and thus save a little prop for the attempted core recovery. Even if F9-023 isn't in a reflyable condition after the mission, examining the first booster to fly and recover twice would be a scientific and engineering goldmine.
Why do I think that this is possible? Because SES have been talking about flying SES-10 on a recycled booster for a while. They may have been planning on this and had the spacecraft assembled appropriately.
This will be the lightest of their next few GTO payloads. Do you think they should negotiate reduced performance for all of them?
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 08/30/2016 02:30 pm
Post by: abaddon on 08/30/2016 02:39 pm
This will be the lightest of their next few GTO payloads. Do you think they should negotiate reduced performance for all of them?The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
Also, don't forget the forthcoming "final" (final) [final?] thrust increase to the Fuller-Thrust version of the F9, that will likely help minimize the margin for recovery as well.
Certainly will be interesting to see what kind of orbits these upcoming birds end up in, although it will all be completely overshadowed by the previously-flown aspect of this particular flight...
Post by: robert_d on 08/30/2016 02:43 pm
SES told Jonathan Amos it was was CRS-8....
Jonathan Amos @BBCAmos 5m5 minutes ago
@NASASpaceflight @iainkun That's what SES told me: April 2016 mission to re-supply ISS. Has to be CRS-8. Any change to that, let me know ;-)
Chris how do you want to split the core versus mission discussion?
Seems like there may be some inevitable duplication.
Post by: nisse on 08/30/2016 02:50 pm
Elon Musk on Twitter: "Thanks for the longstanding faith in SpaceX. We very much look forward to doing this milestone flight with you."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/770629571972435969
Post by: gongora on 08/30/2016 03:02 pm
Post by: gongora on 08/30/2016 03:18 pm
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
SpaceX shouldn't have to negotiate performance reductions to fly on a "flight-proven" vehicle. It should provide the same performance as a new core.
Post by: DanseMacabre on 08/30/2016 03:29 pm
It sounds like they've probably pushed the launch date back from October, the releases today are mentioning Q4 and "late this year".
FWIW Q4 *is* October and can also be called "late this year".
Post by: envy887 on 08/30/2016 03:29 pm
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
SpaceX shouldn't have to negotiate performance reductions to fly on a "flight-proven" vehicle. It should provide the same performance as a new core.
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.
Post by: bstrong on 08/30/2016 03:48 pm
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
SpaceX shouldn't have to negotiate performance reductions to fly on a "flight-proven" vehicle. It should provide the same performance as a new core.
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.
I think that abaddon's point was that these contracts were likely originally negotiated assuming F9v1.1 performance, which may be less than what they gave to SES-9 as a way of making up for launching delays. There's no reason to assume they will give that same performance to the rest of the payloads.
Post by: abaddon on 08/30/2016 04:10 pm
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.Yes, exactly.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2016 04:18 pm
Why BBC says "second-hand"? This is nonsense. SpaceX still owns and operates that booster.
That wouldn't be Jonathan, that would be some bright eyed, bushy tailed subeditor. When I was mass media, I used to hate subeditors playing with headlines and angles. It's a joy to be able to write your own headlines and angles here....just a shame no subeditor is there to catch the grammar farts! #Irony ;D
Also, I do think it's the CRS-8 stage, but the McGregor test fire reference was a mistaken identity with the JCSAT-14 booster in the BBC article.
PS I want to write an article about it, but I want to be able to write more than what everyone already knows per the releases.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/30/2016 04:20 pm
Quote
Luxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.
Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle! >:()
Post by: bstrong on 08/30/2016 04:23 pm
Post by: envy887 on 08/30/2016 04:26 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
Post by: Jet Black on 08/30/2016 04:30 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
SES know full well that the flight will not be as expensive to carry out as a new rocket.
Post by: bstrong on 08/30/2016 04:31 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
Yes, the pricing implies that the underwriters don't see a difference in risk, but SpaceX and SES do.
Post by: starhawk92 on 08/30/2016 04:32 pm
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
SpaceX shouldn't have to negotiate performance reductions to fly on a "flight-proven" vehicle. It should provide the same performance as a new core.
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.
Never, ever would I expect SpaceX to press for recovery at the expense of performance for their customer. They have never asked that before and it would be bad business to start that trend.
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.
Edit: fixed quoting because I'd be a horrible subeditor
Post by: bstrong on 08/30/2016 04:35 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
SES know full well that the flight will not be as expensive to carry out as a new rocket.
My interpretation of the info we have is that all customers who purchase "flight-proven" rockets will get a discount (probably ~30%), and that SES got an additional discount on top of that for being the first one. My point is that that discount implies SES and SpaceX both think the first flight will be riskier, but the insurance underwriters seem to disagree.
Post by: abaddon on 08/30/2016 04:38 pm
How about "...for less than $500 million..."QuoteLuxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.
Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle! >:()
Post by: envy887 on 08/30/2016 04:40 pm
How about "...for less than $500 million..."QuoteLuxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.
Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle! >:()
I wonder if Hughes got a 30% discount from that rate for SBS-3 being the first payload on a re-flown orbiter.
Post by: envy887 on 08/30/2016 04:46 pm
Yes, the pricing implies that the underwriters don't see a difference in risk, but SpaceX and SES do.
As I recall, SES wanted a 50% discount. They are doing this to help their bottom line, not just because they think it's cool. Does anyone know if SpaceX's "free reflight for launch failures" policy applies to this launch?
Post by: abaddon on 08/30/2016 04:47 pm
Never, ever would I expect SpaceX to press for recovery at the expense of performance for their customer. They have never asked that before and it would be bad business to start that trend.I am sure that they don't reduce a contracted orbital performance after the contract has been signed. However, we know SpaceX is absolutely reserving performance for recovery that could otherwise be used (if the customer is willing) to achieve a better orbit, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Post by: kenny008 on 08/30/2016 04:51 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
SES know full well that the flight will not be as expensive to carry out as a new rocket.
My interpretation of the info we have is that all customers who purchase "flight-proven" rockets will get a discount (probably ~30%), and that SES got an additional discount on top of that for being the first one. My point is that that discount implies SES and SpaceX both think the first flight will be riskier, but the insurance underwriters seem to disagree.
I think what it might be showing is the difference between calculated risk (insurance underwriters) and perceived risk (satellite operators and their shareholders). Even if the data shows the actual risk is comparable, you still have to convince humans that using a flown stage is a good idea. Once they have flown x number of stages, people will be more comfortable with the idea, and SpaceX won't have to offer additional discounts any longer.
Post by: Melanchthon on 08/30/2016 04:58 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
Yes, the pricing implies that the underwriters don't see a difference in risk, but SpaceX and SES do.
That might be part of it, but I bet it's a small one.
You don't need a difference in risk to get a difference in price. A difference in *cost* can be enough. As Jet Black noted upthread, "SES know full well that the flight will not be as expensive to carry out as a new rocket"--that's the mechanism that's pushing prices towards mirroring costs.
Simply put, lower costs -> lower prices.
Post by: enzo on 08/30/2016 05:02 pm
Post by: AncientU on 08/30/2016 05:34 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
SES know full well that the flight will not be as expensive to carry out as a new rocket.
My interpretation of the info we have is that all customers who purchase "flight-proven" rockets will get a discount (probably ~30%), and that SES got an additional discount on top of that for being the first one. My point is that that discount implies SES and SpaceX both think the first flight will be riskier, but the insurance underwriters seem to disagree.
I think what it might be showing is the difference between calculated risk (insurance underwriters) and perceived risk (satellite operators and their shareholders). Even if the data shows the actual risk is comparable, you still have to convince humans that using a flown stage is a good idea. Once they have flown x number of stages, people will be more comfortable with the idea, and SpaceX won't have to offer additional discounts any longer.
There's always the unknown unknowns, until x* have flown. Yes, there could be increased risk (certainly perceived risk), but only marginal because of the re-qualification testing of the 'life leader' 0024 and other tests directly on this booster.
* x being a small number in the 2-5 range, based on new launchers being certifiable after 3 successful launches.
Post by: mme on 08/30/2016 05:44 pm
I think it implies that SES is a business that has faith in SpaceX and wants to reduce it's bottom line. SpaceX is eager to fly a "flight-proven" booster to continue self-funding reusability R&D. Negotiations ensued.I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
Yes, the pricing implies that the underwriters don't see a difference in risk, but SpaceX and SES do.
Post by: gongora on 08/30/2016 05:50 pm
Does anyone know if SpaceX's "free reflight for launch failures" policy applies to this launch?
SpaceX doesn't have any "free reflight for launch failures" policy. They negotiated a provision in one contract (Iridium) because they were launching a constellation with multiple flights (and SpaceX was still a very unproven company when they signed that contract).
Post by: gongora on 08/30/2016 05:52 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
Yes, the pricing implies that the underwriters don't see a difference in risk, but SpaceX and SES do.
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/770575713925824512)
Quote
SES decision to pioneer reuse of Falcon 9 first stage comes at a favorable time in space insurance market; rates low, coverage plentiful.
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/30/2016 05:53 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/30/2016 05:56 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
Yes, the pricing implies that the underwriters don't see a difference in risk, but SpaceX and SES do.
I suggest that SES sees a change in risk. SpaceX may not see any risk change, but they do want some revenue on the flight and not a dummy payload to prove reuse.
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 08/30/2016 06:15 pm
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
Yes, the pricing implies that the underwriters don't see a difference in risk, but SpaceX and SES do.
No, there is no difference in risk perception required between SpaceX, SES and insurance. The pricing difference merely reflects the perceived risk of the rest of the launch market, which reduces the market for the first reflown F9 such that SES can demand a lower price. Market dynamics more than risk.
Post by: baldusi on 08/30/2016 06:36 pm
Post by: bstrong on 08/30/2016 06:45 pm
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/770575713925824512)QuoteSES decision to pioneer reuse of Falcon 9 first stage comes at a favorable time in space insurance market; rates low, coverage plentiful.
Thanks, that was the answer I was looking for!
Post by: rsdavis9 on 08/30/2016 07:08 pm
Also, don't forget the forthcoming "final" (final) [final?] thrust increase to the Fuller-Thrust version of the F9, that will likely help minimize the margin for recovery as well.
So we have the upcoming "final" thrust improvement which increases payload to orbit because of the reduction of gravity losses.
Has anybody calculated the 10 second no acceleration between meco and second stage startup. That would also seem to be a gravity loss and probably why the russians do the difficult start second stage before first stage shutdown.
Post by: shooter6947 on 08/30/2016 07:14 pm
So we have the upcoming "final" thrust improvement which increases payload to orbit because of the reduction of gravity losses.
Has anybody calculated the 10 second no acceleration between meco and second stage startup. That would also seem to be a gravity loss and probably why the russians do the difficult start second stage before first stage shutdown.
Well, I mean, with no assumptions it would be 10m/s^2 * 10s = 100 m/s. Right?
Post by: rsdavis9 on 08/30/2016 07:19 pm
Post by: John Alan on 08/30/2016 07:26 pm
I call that...
"coasting in an upward direction... trading velocity for altitude... while clearances improve between a 210klbs thrust rocket engine... and some rather important hardware you plan to recover..."
Just my 2 cents... ;)
On edit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_drag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_drag)
To quote from the above... my bolds added...
Quote
is a measure of the loss in the net performance of a rocket while it is thrusting in a gravitational field.
Post by: shooter6947 on 08/30/2016 07:29 pm
Sounds too easy but also right.
True it is a *little* more complicated than that -- transverse orbital velocity reduces the gravity losses somewhat. But still going to be of that magnitude since the first stage isn't moving all THAT fast at MECO. So: a little less than 100m/s.
Post by: alang on 08/30/2016 08:03 pm
a) the price for going first on a recovered stage and
b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.
Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.
Edit: TPS not GPS.
Post by: mme on 08/30/2016 08:43 pm
They may not try to recover at all asI'd be surprised if they did not attempt a landing. If nothing else it's more data for tuning landing and reentry burns. But add in being able to inspect a twice flown airframe and see if it can go again? Too much much valuable information to just throw away without even trying.
a) the price for going first on a recovered stage and
b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.
Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.
Edit: TPS not GPS.
Post by: AncientU on 08/30/2016 08:53 pm
They may not try to recover at all as
a) the price for going first on a recovered stage and
b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.
Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.
Edit: TPS not GPS.
They are not going for reuse (singular) -- they are going for many reuses, something like 10 between refurbishments and 100 overall. I suspect the unintended loss rate will remain the limiting factor of how many reflights they achieve for a significant time.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/30/2016 09:02 pm
They may not try to recover at all as
a) the price for going first on a recovered stage and
b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.
Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.
Edit: TPS not GPS.
They are not going for reuse (singular) -- they are going for many reuses, something like 10 between refurbishments and 100 overall. I suspect the unintended loss rate will remain the limiting factor of how many reflights they achieve for a significant time.
I disagree. The size of the global market for space launch is limiting. Even at 5 flights per frame they would likely be able to serve 100% of the available market (excluding government funded launches for Russia, China, Europe and India) with 5-6 cores per year.
Post by: Wolfram66 on 08/30/2016 09:23 pm
Need to call in NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, or NHRA teams for processing strategies and brainstorming sessions.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/30/2016 09:31 pm
Q) will the price charged for the re-flown booster go down with each re-use? $40M for 1st reuse, $30M second reuse .... Min $25M? I know Ms Shotwell said ~$40M for reflown booster, but they've never reflown one. Will cost and time spent readying boosters for reuse go down with time.Probably not.
Need to call in NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, or NHRA teams for processing strategies and brainstorming sessions.
The overhead costs of launch - using the range, paying everyone who works there, payload integration, fuel, etc. - all stay the same. Also they are still building a new second stage every time, so there's the same overhead costs for that every time. Plus the additional costs for the first stage recovery, of shipping and testing all components, refurbishment if necessary, etc. will need to be there.
Post by: Dante2121 on 08/30/2016 11:02 pm
Post by: francesco nicoli on 08/30/2016 11:19 pm
They may not try to recover at all as
a) the price for going first on a recovered stage and
b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.
Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.
Edit: TPS not GPS.
They are not going for reuse (singular) -- they are going for many reuses, something like 10 between refurbishments and 100 overall. I suspect the unintended loss rate will remain the limiting factor of how many reflights they achieve for a significant time.
I disagree. The size of the global market for space launch is limiting. Even at 5 flights per frame they would likely be able to serve 100% of the available market (excluding government funded launches for Russia, China, Europe and India) with 5-6 cores per year.
maybe later: I agree with you that the economics of having so many reuses doesn't look favourable for now (altough if they succeed they could switch personnel & infrastructure to other goals, such as the satellite constellation & mars).
However, I am pretty sure that they will attempt to recover this one.
On the one hand, the PR payback of being the first stage used-recovered-reused-recovered is immense.
On the other hand, data is essential too: it will be the first first stage ever flown twice, nobody knows for sure how will it fare, and you won't know unless you recover it.
Post by: AncientU on 08/30/2016 11:52 pm
They may not try to recover at all as
a) the price for going first on a recovered stage and
b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.
Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.
Edit: TPS not GPS.
They are not going for reuse (singular) -- they are going for many reuses, something like 10 between refurbishments and 100 overall. I suspect the unintended loss rate will remain the limiting factor of how many reflights they achieve for a significant time.
I disagree. The size of the global market for space launch is limiting. Even at 5 flights per frame they would likely be able to serve 100% of the available market (excluding government funded launches for Russia, China, Europe and India) with 5-6 cores per year.
At the current projected-by-Spacex recovery rate of 70% on ASDS, they might not even be able to fly their own 2017 manifest to GTO with 6 cores. After the first flight, they'd be down to 4... after the third, down to 2 with only 13 flights accomplished. Those two have a 50-50 chance of surviving the next two flights. Six cores might just get them through the year... for their own scheduled flights.
Five flights per frame (on average) is not possible until the recovery rate improves.
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/31/2016 12:01 am
- Ed Kyle
Post by: gongora on 08/31/2016 12:10 am
Can anyone explain the "R-023" in the current thread title (as of August 30, 2016)? Although the CRS-8 first stage did boost the 23rd flight, there is information in other threads that the booster itself is serial number "B1021". http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.msg1572912#msg1572912
- Ed Kyle
Going with the number of the first flight is probably safest for now, unless we're sure we can actually find out and keep track of serial numbers for all of the recent and upcoming cores.
Post by: mvpel on 08/31/2016 04:19 am
If your not burning any fuel... how is that a gravity loss ?... ???
I call that...
"coasting in an upward direction... trading velocity for altitude... while clearances improve between a 210klbs thrust rocket engine... and some rather important hardware you plan to recover..."
Compare CRS-8 at T+2:40 and Thaicom-8 Technical at T+2:43, and you'll note a very significant difference from stage separation to ignition. In the latter, the upper stage shifts the aim-point of the engine (remember the Kzinti Lesson, everyone?) well away from the booster and down towards the Earth as shown in the screenshots - an angle that is able to provide additional altitude, which it needs anyway, at the momentary expense of lateral velocity while the engine starts up and the booster gains more distance, and then it trims out and keeps on going.
I have little doubt that this maneuver was designed to substantially reduce damage to the interstage without having to spend very much time coasting: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40256.msg1540860#msg1540860
Post by: Brovane on 08/31/2016 05:36 am
Q) will the price charged for the re-flown booster go down with each re-use? $40M for 1st reuse, $30M second reuse .... Min $25M? I know Ms Shotwell said ~$40M for reflown booster, but they've never reflown one. Will cost and time spent readying boosters for reuse go down with time.Probably not.
Need to call in NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, or NHRA teams for processing strategies and brainstorming sessions.
The overhead costs of launch - using the range, paying everyone who works there, payload integration, fuel, etc. - all stay the same. Also they are still building a new second stage every time, so there's the same overhead costs for that every time. Plus the additional costs for the first stage recovery, of shipping and testing all components, refurbishment if necessary, etc. will need to be there.
Obviously your will always have your OpeX costs, refurbishment costs and range costs for each launch along with the 2nd stage costs. However the more launches you can get out of a 1st stage, the more launches you can amortize the costs of the initial build of the 1st stage.
Post by: guckyfan on 08/31/2016 07:33 am
Post by: AncientU on 08/31/2016 12:00 pm
Q) will the price charged for the re-flown booster go down with each re-use? $40M for 1st reuse, $30M second reuse .... Min $25M? I know Ms Shotwell said ~$40M for reflown booster, but they've never reflown one. Will cost and time spent readying boosters for reuse go down with time.Probably not.
Need to call in NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, or NHRA teams for processing strategies and brainstorming sessions.
The overhead costs of launch - using the range, paying everyone who works there, payload integration, fuel, etc. - all stay the same. Also they are still building a new second stage every time, so there's the same overhead costs for that every time. Plus the additional costs for the first stage recovery, of shipping and testing all components, refurbishment if necessary, etc. will need to be there.
Obviously your will always have your OpeX costs, refurbishment costs and range costs for each launch along with the 2nd stage costs. However the more launches you can get out of a 1st stage, the more launches you can amortize the costs of the initial build of the 1st stage.
No need to amortize. First customer paid for the stage capital expense...
Quote
If we assume the boosters cost $25M each to manufacture, then the recovery/refurb cost is of order 10%... cost of one booster or so for each ten in the barn -- the situation which could exist at the end of 2016 (20 weeks from now).http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40373.msg1569114#msg1569114
Therefore, only 8-9 are officially free.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 08/31/2016 12:55 pm
Post by: Toastmastern on 08/31/2016 01:26 pm
Any word on the payload? Has it completed tests? For those hoping for an October launch, it should be shipping out to the Cape in the next couple of weeks.
Isn't it at the cape already?
Post by: mvpel on 08/31/2016 02:04 pm
No need to amortize. First customer paid for the stage capital expense...
It'll be interesting to see how the pricing structures shift around when that's no longer the expectation. The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane, needless to say.
Post by: guckyfan on 08/31/2016 02:14 pm
The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane
No, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy.
Post by: Jet Black on 08/31/2016 02:53 pm
The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane
No, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy.
true, but that's because people don't expect 747s to fall apart after the first flight. Once it is expected that a rocket will last more than one launch, people may start to expect even the first flight to be cheaper because they will see it far more as a service (delivery to orbit) rather than a thing (a rocket which delivers something to orbit) that they are paying for.
Post by: Brovane on 08/31/2016 03:10 pm
No need to amortize. First customer paid for the stage capital expense...QuoteIf we assume the boosters cost $25M each to manufacture, then the recovery/refurb cost is of order 10%... cost of one booster or so for each ten in the barn -- the situation which could exist at the end of 2016 (20 weeks from now).http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40373.msg1569114#msg1569114
Therefore, only 8-9 are officially free.
Assuming that the practice continues of having the first customer paying for all the capital expenses of the first flight. If SpaceX reaches the point that they can assume a minimum of say 5 flights for each booster(Just throwing some numbers out their) then they could say charge the 1st customer $13M for capital costs and the next 4-customers pay $3M each and your costs are amortized out over 5 launches and everyone gets a lower price from re-use even the 1st customer that uses the launch services of the booster. If they reach the point of assuming 10 flights for each booster, then the amortization of the initial capital costs change. It isn't like a Airline tries to make back all of it's capital costs on buying a new aircraft on the 1st flight of that aircraft.
Post by: JamesH65 on 08/31/2016 03:14 pm
The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane
No, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy.
true, but that's because people don't expect 747s to fall apart after the first flight. Once it is expected that a rocket will last more than one launch, people may start to expect even the first flight to be cheaper because they will see it far more as a service (delivery to orbit) rather than a thing (a rocket which delivers something to orbit) that they are paying for.
Some companies may want to fly only on new boosters. (NASA currently?). That's doesn't happen with planes, which will throw the figures awry for launchers.
Post by: bstrong on 08/31/2016 03:26 pm
IMO most importantly the value of flight 5 is not lower than flight 2. Cores will not launch if their safe operation is not ensured. So prices will not vary. Prices for first launches will be higher only as long as there are customers who insist on new cores and are willing to pay a higher price. Good for business when NASA for astronauts and DOD want new cores. It will give a constant supply of basically free cores for commercial flights.Also, charging different prices based on number of flights would make scheduling a lot harder. If they sold a launch on a two-flight booster, they'd have to make sure that one with the right number of flights on it was available at the time of that launch. I think that would be pretty much impossible given how much the manifest gets reshuffled.
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 08/31/2016 03:38 pm
I realize that shotwell did not expressly say that, but the phrasing doesn't rule it out either. I think we will just see that number on the website for the lower than maximum payload flights come down based on now having the option to reuse stages.
Existing contracts may have to be modified to allow for a reused stage or they may not. Obviously it seems like the SES contract had to be modified but they may have added verbiage to later contracts already. Whenever you would like to modify a contract for your own gain you will have to give something as well even if the other party doesn't lose anything.
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/31/2016 03:43 pm
How about "...for less than $500 million..."QuoteLuxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.
Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle! >:()
I wonder if Hughes got a 30% discount from that rate for SBS-3 being the first payload on a re-flown orbiter.
I quote from the thesis "The Space Shuttle: An Attempt at Low-cost, Routine Access to Space" by Jeffery Wonch. https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/34958/90Sep_Wonch.pdf;sequence=1
From page 47:
Quote
The price for a (USA) civil or foreign launch prior to 1988 was $38 million plus fees for capital facilities and insurance.
(This was the (in)famous STS subsidy.)
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/31/2016 06:02 pm
Reuse of boosters right now is about one and only one business item right now.
Head of manifest. Next to fly.
Because you're an unexpected schedule "catch up" (or "go ahead").
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
This means that your manifest clears faster, and you can afford a more congested manifest then before w/o cancellation worries.
Screw the economics at the moment - they're too unclear. Even flight frequency is "too soon".
But opportunistic "quick turn" launch ... is the next thing to happen. For this, you need "US surplus" as a strategic resource to match the reuse booster resource.
Gradual phaseover here. Next will be flight frequency. Then an economic easing. Then the "hockey stick" effect starts to worry global launch providers.
Then economic reuse.
Post by: AncientU on 08/31/2016 06:49 pm
Both the over enthusiasm (SX fans) and under enthusiasm (Jim and various) are distractions.
Reuse of boosters right now is about one and only one business item right now.
Head of manifest. Next to fly.
Because you're an unexpected schedule "catch up" (or "go ahead").
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
This means that your manifest clears faster, and you can afford a more congested manifest then before w/o cancellation worries.
Screw the economics at the moment - they're too unclear. Even flight frequency is "too soon".
But opportunistic "quick turn" launch ... is the next thing to happen. For this, you need "US surplus" as a strategic resource to match the reuse booster resource.
Gradual phaseover here. Next will be flight frequency. Then an economic easing. Then the "hockey stick" effect starts to worry global launch providers.
Then economic reuse.
Your point about an upper stage surplus is a good one... seems that building extra vacuum Merlins shouldn't be limiting at one per stage, but getting the core, avionics, and fairing together (and fit somewhere in the production queue) could be a challenge. Fairing production rate was previously called out as limiting.
If these bottlenecks can be cleared, then manifest delays by any vendor (Proton's current 'pause' as an example) could lead to jumping ship -- a phenomenon currently kept in check by the long lead time of any alternative launch provider.
I disagree with your last point, though. If global launch providers wait until the series of events you describe are realized, it will be too late. Same for satellite operators. Cannot be caught flat footed in a market that is changing at an accelerating pace. (I think you said the same thing a couple weeks ago.)
Post by: Jim on 08/31/2016 06:58 pm
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month).
a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)
b. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.
c. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)
d. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
e. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)
f. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.
Atlas did Cygnus in less than 12 months
Post by: JasonAW3 on 08/31/2016 07:15 pm
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month).
a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)
b. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.
c. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)
d. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
e. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)
f. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.
Atlas did Cygnus in less than 12 months
So, in other words, while they had already planned on using a Falcon 9, it just hadn't been determined whether it would be a new or relaunched Falcon 9?
Integration shouldn't be much of a problem, as all systems should be the same, although updated software and firmware might need to be loaded. Or would I be mistaken on this?
Post by: Hankelow8 on 08/31/2016 07:36 pm
50/60 % would not surprise me.
I think they will be treating the first launch as a "loss leader", its basically nothing more than a promotion marketing strategy to promote future sales.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 08/31/2016 07:52 pm
All the people employed.
Ground support equipment.
If you streamline operations and do more launches with less people you get a much smaller cost per launch.
This is where the shuttle really failed.
Now having said that does anybody have real figures of what all the costs besides the manufacture of the rocket is. 20% 40%?
Obviously the percent changes based on launch frequency.
Hard to nail down.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/01/2016 12:22 am
[NB will explain Jims rebuttal for those who don't understand what he's saying, then give my counter argument.]
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month).
a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)
Spacecraft aren't "timed to launch" in terms of manufacturing and qualification. It's more like separate works of art that are commissioned, consume an organization, and are pushed out, then there's a lull before the next,
Some, like the GPS constellations, have ground standbys/secondarys that are ready to go. Rare.
Counter argument to Jim - some like SES want to horn in on Boeing's territory, so they can actually do more than one concurrently.
Quote
b. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.
SC have a retinue, like a hollywood star, that accompany them as they are processed into a payload, tested, encapsulated ... delays, things don't work, ... eventually they make it to the pad, launch, and they recycle (with time off).
Often you have additional people on said team or related from the SC manufacturer, so that if someone quits they don't take the business with them. So you can "do more" because you do have flex, but you can't overcommit and ever let down your customer. This is a problem if you have demand for the same thing supplied by same people/person at the same time.
Counterargument - the customer base for a early on orbit activation will cut you considerable slack because you are allowing them to earn millions quicker by not sitting on the ground. They will also "team" with SC operator to allow another customer to "share"/overlap a part of the team, because there will be more total "eyes" on their SC so they'll get better quality for the same service.
Quote
c. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)EGSE, MGSE, FGSE = Electronic/Mechanical/Fueled Ground Systems Equipment
They have only one set of hardware because there's no need for more. This was true also of other rarified services that seldom had demand. Some of this equipment has copies in manufacturing facilities, especially handing/checkout/test equipment, because when you assemble/qualify a bus you need to work it in the same manner (although you'd have to outfit customer specific portions to them as well).
Counterargument: Are you nuts? So they outfit an existing handling fixture from the assembly floor, borrow a bring-up bench used for the proto bus, and add on the transponder checkout rig, while the assembly support team back fills with bringing up replacements for both in the time window to the next bird, all getting a bonus for overtime because they got ahead on the calendar year with an additional mission under their belt.
I'd want that bonus.
[The rest is a bit much IMHO. Think its obvious so will forgo being long winded.]
And no, fueled operations are limited to a very limited (thankfully) part of the processing just prior to mate/launch, and apart from operations congestion around a step in processing. That's going too far.
Quote
d. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
Most sats are based on a few busses that have already flown and had the same integration. You're straining at gnats. And no, don't think that a NASA planetary mission or AF DMSP derivative is going to want to ride a reused booster any time soon ::)
Quote
e. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)For GSO launches, you could "swap" slots (if the same operator) and sign up for a later flight for a discount for one not urgent to fly.
Quote
f. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.You can deliver two when you deliver one.
Quote
Atlas did Cygnus in less than 12 monthsBFD they switched a booster between customers. ULA can do a fast launch too. What they can't do is build a LV in the time a booster can be reused, and a US built.
And, before another specious claim gets started:
g. risk of SC damage because concurrent operations with multiple SC on site overtax resources
No, we can (and do) handle concurrent payload operations, where some can become stalled/sidelined, where the issues can be worked while others proceed to launch. Even SC from the same vendor/operator Jim ...
Yes there are some paperwork/regulator issues. Just like before airlines swapped slots. I could get into the minutiae if you like ...
And we haven't even talked much about the case where the sucessive SC / launch ops are non conflicting.
Oh, and what would be the SX issue to handle this? Need more payload processing facilities. Gee, where would they get more space for that ...
Post by: psionedge on 09/01/2016 03:58 am
Counter argument to Jim - some like SES want to horn in on Boeing's territory, so they can actually do more than one concurrently.What is this Boeing territory you are saying SES wants in on? Are you saying they want to manufacture satellites? Right now SES buys satellites from more than on manufacturer at the same time.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/03/2016 07:35 am
SpaceX to shift Florida launches to new pad after explosion
https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-shift-florida-launches-pad-explosion-003208139--finance.html?ref=gsQuoteWith its launch pad likely facing major repairs, SpaceX said it would use a second Florida site, called 39A, which is located a few miles north at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and was used for space shuttle missions.
The pad is on schedule to be operational in November, SpaceX said. The company had planned to use the pad for the first time later this year for a test flight of its new Falcon Heavy rocket.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/17/2016 06:04 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41252.msg1598513#msg1598513
"We are going to re-fly the first returned core December or January. We have test fired one of the returned cores 8 times and it looks good. That is promising for testing re-flight."
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/28/2016 09:22 am
Quote
SES: Based on SpaceX’s return-to-flight plans, we expect SES-10 to launch on reused Falcon 9 in January. Payload for next Falcon 9 still TBD
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/791914581065019392 (https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/791914581065019392)
Edit: report of same SES remarks by Peter B. de Selding
Quote
SES(6): CFO says SES-10 tentatively set for January launch on SpaceX Falcon 9. (This mission will inaugurate reuse of Falcon 9 1st stage.)
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/791915233677758465 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/791915233677758465)
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/16/2017 10:21 am
Quote
This weekend our #SES10 #satellite was shipped from @AirbusDS facilities in Toulouse to Cape Canaveral for its forthcoming launch w. @SpaceX
Twitter.com/SES_Satellites
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/16/2017 11:26 am
Post by: kevinof on 01/16/2017 11:28 am
So, SES are willing to fly on an unmodified F9 v.1.2 with just the altered prop and He load procedure?
Post by: gongora on 01/16/2017 12:22 pm
So, SES are willing to fly on an unmodified F9 v.1.2 with just the altered prop and He load procedure?
If any mods were made to the Iridium booster because of the accident investigation (I don't know if there were any), then I'd expect those same mods to be made to the SES-10 booster.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/16/2017 01:20 pm
Quote
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 2h2 hours ago
@SES_Satellites still intends SES-10 (5,300kg/GTO) as 1st @SpaceX mission using previously flown Falcon 9 1st stage. Planned Q1 launch.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/820971443605434368 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/820971443605434368)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/17/2017 08:14 pm
Post by: envy887 on 01/17/2017 08:19 pm
If the payload has been shipped that usually indicates a launch ~ 30 days later. Putting a SES launch at end of Feb. It is possible that by the end of Feb the launch count for the year could be 4 ;D
That would be hitting the 2 per month pace they reported want.
Post by: gongora on 01/17/2017 08:50 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/17/2017 08:54 pm
If the payload has been shipped that usually indicates a launch ~ 30 days later. Putting a SES launch at end of Feb. It is possible that by the end of Feb the launch count for the year could be 4 ;D
That would be hitting the 2 per month pace they reported want.
That would huge so soon after return to flight. That would be a most impressive cadence and they wouldn't need to improve that to have an incredible year.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/18/2017 10:46 am
So long as they can get the feed of payloads and rockets onto pads that are turning around at the right rate, then there is no reason why they can't manage 2/month. This is especially so given as launches will be spread around LC-39A, -40 and -4E in such a way that the individual HIFs, payload preparation facilities and pads will have longer than 2 weeks between launches.
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 01/18/2017 01:04 pm
SES 10 telecom satellite in Florida for launch on reused SpaceX rocket (http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/17/ses-10-telecom-satellite-in-florida-for-launch-on-reused-spacex-rocket/)
Quote
Assuming the final launch pad work is completed in the coming days, and SpaceX can launch its next two missions on, or close to, their current target dates, the launch of SES 10 could occur around Feb. 22, at the earliest, an SES official told Spaceflight Now.
Post by: douglas100 on 01/18/2017 04:16 pm
When you think about it, the AMOS-6 accident didn't really seriously affect the procedures that are really critical to launch cadence....Disagree. The loss of use of SLC-40 is bound to affect launch cadence.
Quote
...This is especially so given as launches will be spread around LC-39A, -40 and -4E in such a way that the individual HIFs, payload preparation facilities and pads will have longer than 2 weeks between launches...
You can't spread missions between Vandenberg and the other pads. If SLC-4E is out of action then polar missions like Iridium are going to be held up. And you obviously can't spread missions between LC-39A and SLC-40 until 40 is repaired.
Post by: envy887 on 01/18/2017 05:06 pm
When you think about it, the AMOS-6 accident didn't really seriously affect the procedures that are really critical to launch cadence....Disagree. The loss of use of SLC-40 is bound to affect launch cadence.Quote...This is especially so given as launches will be spread around LC-39A, -40 and -4E in such a way that the individual HIFs, payload preparation facilities and pads will have longer than 2 weeks between launches...
You can't spread missions between Vandenberg and the other pads. If SLC-4E is out of action then polar missions like Iridium are going to be held up. And you obviously can't spread missions between LC-39A and SLC-40 until 40 is repaired.
Polar missions can't launch from the Cape. And getting payloads on-site fast enough might be an issue. Iridium can't launch again until April.
But each pad has on average 4 weeks (or 6, once 40 is back up) to prepare a mission to keep the total flight rate at once every 2 weeks. They were getting missions through as fast as once every 3 weeks at LC-40 last year. Is there any evidence that SLC-4 and LC-39A will not be able to match that if the launch vehicles and spacecraft are available?
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/18/2017 05:51 pm
When you think about it, the AMOS-6 accident didn't really seriously affect the procedures that are really critical to launch cadence....Disagree. The loss of use of SLC-40 is bound to affect launch cadence.Quote...This is especially so given as launches will be spread around LC-39A, -40 and -4E in such a way that the individual HIFs, payload preparation facilities and pads will have longer than 2 weeks between launches...
You can't spread missions between Vandenberg and the other pads. If SLC-4E is out of action then polar missions like Iridium are going to be held up. And you obviously can't spread missions between LC-39A and SLC-40 until 40 is repaired.
Polar missions can't launch from the Cape. And getting payloads on-site fast enough might be an issue. Iridium can't launch again until April.
But each pad has on average 4 weeks (or 6, once 40 is back up) to prepare a mission to keep the total flight rate at once every 2 weeks. They were getting missions through as fast as once every 3 weeks at LC-40 last year. Is there any evidence that SLC-4 and LC-39A will not be able to match that if the launch vehicles and spacecraft are available?
Well it seems to me they are targeting an even faster turnaround than that. Currently it seems that just LC39A will be targeting a launch every 2 weeks, at least as far as the first 3 launches are concerned. Currently we are tentatively looking at 26 Jan, 8 Feb and 22 Feb, all from LC39A.
So anyting from Vandenberg will be on top of that.
Post by: guckyfan on 01/18/2017 07:17 pm
Well it seems to me they are targeting an even faster turnaround than that. Currently it seems that just LC39A will be targeting a launch every 2 weeks, at least as far as the first 3 launches are concerned. Currently we are tentatively looking at 26 Jan, 8 Feb and 22 Feb, all from LC39A.
So anyting from Vandenberg will be on top of that.
I am quite sure with a sufficiently large pad crew they can have turn around times of even less than 2 weeks. But on average weather,
Post by: gongora on 01/19/2017 02:43 pm
Quote
1021 passes through Texas before the Cape, yes.(S/N 1021 = F9-23 = CRS-8 Core = SES-10 Core)
Post by: gongora on 01/20/2017 08:29 pm
North 28 15 19 West 74 1 18 Autonomous Drone Ship, within 10 nautical miles
Post by: docmordrid on 01/21/2017 03:25 am
This appears to be the FCC application for the SES-10 landing (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=75718&RequestTimeout=1000), 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.
Post by: Flying Beaver on 01/21/2017 03:27 am
This appears to be the FCC application for the SES-10 landing (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=75718&RequestTimeout=1000), 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.
Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.
Post by: gongora on 01/21/2017 03:38 am
This appears to be the FCC application for the SES-10 landing (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=75718&RequestTimeout=1000), 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.
Hopefully, heaviest GTO mission to date.
It's about the same as SES-9. There may be 3 heavier sats in their next 6 commsat missions.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2017 08:46 am
Another first: the first re-landing of a stage.
That record belongs to New Shepard.
Post by: docmordrid on 01/21/2017 09:54 am
Post by: Mader Levap on 01/21/2017 11:02 am
Another 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.
Post by: Hauerg on 01/21/2017 11:06 am
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. ...I peg to differ: Losing a pad at a time when #2, #3, and #4 are not (yet/again) available sounds like a shitty thing to me.
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/21/2017 12:22 pm
Another 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.
Post by: JamesH65 on 01/21/2017 12:58 pm
Another 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.
Quite. Claiming first is pretty irrelevant. What happens in the next 10 years IS relevant.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/22/2017 05:37 am
Not from an orbital launch.
Falcon 9 first stage (which is the part that landed) is suborbital. :-)
If you want record for re-landing of any stage, there is Grasshopper.
And before that DC-X, plus all the other reusable rockets that did that task. In any case, none of these rockets got anywhere near to space.
DC-X, or how about the LEM? We are starting to really split hairs.
The LM doesn't count because it wasn't reused.
For the record. Any corrections welcome!
First Rocket Soft Landing (jet assisted): Lunar Landing Research Vehicle 1 (30 October 1964)
First Rocket Soft Landing (capsule ejection): Luna 9 (3 February 1966)
First Rocket Soft Landing (vehicle intact): Surveyor 1 (2 June 1966)
First Rocket Soft Landing (crewed): Lunar Module 5 Eagle (20 July 1969)
First Rocket Soft Landing (slow speed): DC-X (18 August 1993)
First Rocket Soft Landing Reflight (slow speed): DC-X (11 September 1993)
First Rocket Soft Landing (sub orbital): New Shepard (23 November 2015)
First Rocket Soft Landing (launch vehicle first stage): Falcon 9 (22 December 2015)
First Rocket Soft Landing Reflight (sub orbital): New Shepard (22 January 2016)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/22/2017 07:51 am
Edit:
Hopefully, 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?
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/22/2017 01:00 pm
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?
I don't think 200kg is enough of a net difference to account for the fact that this will be an expendable mission. Rather, I am increasingly convinced that the return to slower propellant and helium loading procedures has cut nominal performance enough to eat into the nominal ~15% performance margin typically reserved for landing.
Post by: mme on 01/22/2017 08:20 pm
Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.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...
Edit:Hopefully, 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?
Post by: starhawk92 on 01/23/2017 01:28 pm
Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.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...
Edit:Hopefully, 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?
Quite agree -- I'd be happy to lose boosters to Davy Jones in 2017 than any other fashion if I was SpaceX. A "perfect" 2017 would bring back a lot of goodwill towards experimenting at the edge of performance again.
Post by: woods170 on 01/23/2017 01:38 pm
The short-term solution to the AMOS 6 anomaly is not less dense propellants. It loading warmer Helium.Time to get this thread back to SES-10 ... please.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...
Edit:Hopefully, 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?
Post by: rsdavis9 on 01/23/2017 01:47 pm
The 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.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2017 01:57 pm
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.The 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.
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.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/23/2017 02:23 pm
There is a performance cost associated with a warmer bulk LOX temperature. Estimates have been made by others over the last few months.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.The 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.
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.
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.
Post by: mn on 01/23/2017 02:47 pm
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.The 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.
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 don't think this is correct (as I believe Jim has stated already several times, so I'm just posting for him, saving him some keystrokes).
With normal lox, it warms, boils off and is vented, and the LOX is replenished by GSE. But supercooled LOX warming (NOT boiling) to be slightly warmer, it does not vent and cannot be replenished unless there was additional plumbing to allow you to remove the 'warmer' lox and replace it with colder lox. Apparently this additional plumbing does not exist.
Now how much it warms and what is the performance hit, that is another question that I am not commenting on, I have no idea, (though I bet Jim does ;)
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/23/2017 02:52 pm
Post by: ugordan on 01/23/2017 02:55 pm
I see a geyser of LOx during part of the launch procedures, which I can only assume is this happening.
This is GOX/LOX vented from the strongback, not the vehicle and it was happening on v1.1 launches as well.
Post by: gongora on 01/23/2017 02:57 pm
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.
SpaceX filed paperwork with the FCC less than a week ago saying they are sending out the ASDS for this flight. I'm going to interpret that as meaning they intend to try recovering the SES-10 booster.
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/23/2017 02:57 pm
Why is the strongback squirting LOx?I see a geyser of LOx during part of the launch procedures, which I can only assume is this happening.
This is GOX/LOX vented from the strongback, not the vehicle and it was happening on v1.1 launches as well.
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2017 03:00 pm
Why is the strongback squirting LOx?I see a geyser of LOx during part of the launch procedures, which I can only assume is this happening.
This is GOX/LOX vented from the strongback, not the vehicle and it was happening on v1.1 launches as well.
because the fill and drain valve on the vehicle has been closed and the trapped liquid in the lines needs to be vented/drained.
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/23/2017 03:02 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/23/2017 03:12 pm
Hasn't Elon recently tweeted that this flight will be expendable?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.
SpaceX filed paperwork with the FCC less than a week ago saying they are sending out the ASDS for this flight. I'm going to interpret that as meaning they intend to try recovering the SES-10 booster.
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/23/2017 03:14 pm
Hasn't Elon recently tweeted that this flight will be expendable?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.
SpaceX filed paperwork with the FCC less than a week ago saying they are sending out the ASDS for this flight. I'm going to interpret that as meaning they intend to try recovering the SES-10 booster.
No, he was tweeting about EchoStar 23.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2017 03:21 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo
This I believe is an example of the purging of warmed LOX and replenishment of GSE cold LOX
Post by: old_sellsword on 01/23/2017 03:24 pm
This is true, but I think this is only at the point where the strongback is retracted and fuel ops have concluded. However there is a second, earlier event - around T-11:40 - where there is obviously a LOX purge activity. Even those watching the livestream commented on that as it was unexpected. This, I believe, is an example of the venting and retopping and can be seen on the technical webcast at T-11:40 (7:57 into the video).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo
This I believe is an example of the purging of warmed LOX and replenishment of GSE cold LOX
LOX filling is not a continuous process under the new procedures they implemented with that flight, so Jim's explanation still holds.
Post by: mn on 01/23/2017 03:25 pm
This is true, but I think this is only at the point where the strongback is retracted and fuel ops have concluded. However there is a second, earlier event - around T-11:40 - where there is obviously a LOX purge activity. Even those watching the livestream commented on that as it was unexpected. This, I believe, is an example of the venting and retopping and can be seen on the technical webcast at T-11:40 (7:57 into the video).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo
This I believe is an example of the purging of warmed LOX and replenishment of GSE cold LOX
Obviously some of the LOX will warm up to the GOX and be vented, but that would be just the top layer of LOX. The bulk of the supercooled LOX is still warming slightly AND IS NOT VENTING, no way are they pouring LOX out of the GOX vent. (IANARS but it seems like a really bad idea).
edit: fix LOX/GOX in last sentence.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/23/2017 03:26 pm
Oops. I was conflating two things, then.Hasn't Elon recently tweeted that this flight will be expendable?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.
SpaceX filed paperwork with the FCC less than a week ago saying they are sending out the ASDS for this flight. I'm going to interpret that as meaning they intend to try recovering the SES-10 booster.
No, he was tweeting about EchoStar 23.
I guess objectively it's a good thing that there are so many upcoming flights that they're running together in my head.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/23/2017 05:50 pm
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 [...]
I think the value in recovering it is not because they may want to fly it a third time, but rather to inspect and find out just how good or bad its condition is after a 2nd flight. To persuade more customers that re-use isn't risky will surely be easier with the evidence from a re-used booster? If the condition isn't great in any respect then SpaceX learn very valuable lesson and can talk to customers about the steps they are taking to address it.
Post by: abaddon on 01/23/2017 06:29 pm
I don't think 200kg is enough of a net difference to account for the fact that this will be an expendable mission. Rather, I am increasingly convinced that the return to slower propellant and helium loading procedures has cut nominal performance enough to eat into the nominal ~15% performance margin typically reserved for landing.Or maybe they decided getting a half-cooked stage back on a three-engine landing burn that endangers the ASDS to recover a soon-to-be-obsolete booster wasn't worth the hassle.
[EDIT] I see you said something similar to this later.
Post by: CyndyC on 01/23/2017 07:57 pm
However there is a second, earlier event - around T-11:40 - where there is obviously a LOX purge activity. Even those watching the livestream commented on that as it was unexpected. This, I believe, is an example of the venting and retopping and can be seen on the technical webcast at T-11:40 (7:57 into the video).
This I believe is an example of the purging of warmed LOX and replenishment of GSE cold LOX
T-11:40 (7:57 video) is almost exactly one minute after John Insprucker says at T-12:39 (6:58 in the hosted video), "[liquid oxygen] loading is currently paused as we are loading the last of the helium into the storage vessels." So maybe a minute later oxygen loading was resumed, but that still could mean the purging was from the lines to clear them of buildup before resuming.
Post by: CyndyC on 01/23/2017 08:17 pm
That cost to fuel margin must have been greater than the cost of the revised loading procedures, because SpaceX can't maintain their new goals for launch & landing frequency with OCISLY out of commission for several weeks like it was before.
Post by: CraigLieb on 01/24/2017 11:57 am
Recall that the SES-9 launch that tore up OCISLY so badly had been sent to a higher than previously planned orbit, to make up for some of the delay during the CRS-7 investigation by saving the payload some time getting to its final target on its own at a slower pace.
That cost to fuel margin must have been greater than the cost of the revised loading procedures, because SpaceX can't maintain their new goals for launch & landing frequency with OCISLY out of commission for several weeks like it was before.
Didn't they perform an upgrade on the deck plating on the ASDS? I know they had to do repairs after the 'robust landing', but recently I thought they brought in more deck plating also during the hiatus in flight. Not sure of my "facts" here, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Post by: ClayJar on 01/24/2017 01:15 pm
Didn't they perform an upgrade on the deck plating on the ASDS? I know they had to do repairs after the 'robust landing', but recently I thought they brought in more deck plating also during the hiatus in flight. Not sure of my "facts" here, so please correct me if I am wrong.
It certainly looked like they were doing something to the center, as shown in the photo on this post in the ASDS thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.msg1618352#msg1618352):
Taken Saturday, Dec 3, 2016, about 4:30p
Post by: cscott on 01/24/2017 02:23 pm
That cost to fuel margin must have been greater than the cost of the revised loading procedures, because SpaceX can't maintain their new goals for launch & landing frequency with OCISLY out of commission for several weeks like it was before.Pretty sure that with their current backlog and the upcoming arrival of block 5 they'd do "water landings" or skip recovery altogether if something were to happen to OCISLY.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/24/2017 02:36 pm
Post by: hrissan on 01/29/2017 05:22 pm
This is true, but I think this is only at the point where the strongback is retracted and fuel ops have concluded. However there is a second, earlier event - around T-11:40 - where there is obviously a LOX purge activity. Even those watching the livestream commented on that as it was unexpected. This, I believe, is an example of the venting and retopping and can be seen on the technical webcast at T-11:40 (7:57 into the video).That would work if warm LOX ended up at the top of the tank. But as the heat influx is from tank walls, the warmer LOX would start its long travel up, that motion would definitely include intermixing with inner layers of colder LOX. So IMHO the right way to summarize process is "all volume of LOX in the tank is gradually warming up".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo
This I believe is an example of the purging of warmed LOX and replenishment of GSE cold LOX
And the only way to substantially cool it back is replacing almost all LOX in a tank.
I'm afraid other "creative" ideas like creating vacuum in the tank (and keeping it at reduced boiling temperature) or installing large and heavy heat exchanger are out of question :)
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/29/2017 05:27 pm
I would think with the performance enhancement envisioned with Block 5 that some manifested launches slated for ASDS under < Block 5 could manage a RTLS with Block 5.
With the enhancement I think most LEO missions' landings would be RTLS, with a few being ASDS.
Post by: Orbiter on 02/01/2017 12:24 am
Post by: llanitedave on 02/01/2017 03:23 am
Post by: docmordrid on 02/01/2017 03:53 am
Post by: Comga on 02/01/2017 06:39 pm
SES-10 first stage (AKA CRS-8 core) firing on the test stand in McGregor from SpaceX's Twitter feed.
A shiny, white, USED rocket!
cleans up nicely.... :)
Terrific!
Post by: zodiacchris on 02/01/2017 09:37 pm
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/01/2017 10:20 pm
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 02/01/2017 10:25 pm
I wonder how many times it will fly, I'm guessing two more, including SES-10
IF they fly it again, after SES-10 that indicates a huge amount of confidence in the article itself and their ability to recover it... then to put it in the Smithsonian, would be the capstone (peak) of a great career... worth taking a boo... (visiting)
Post by: abaddon on 02/01/2017 10:35 pm
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class boosterThe first ever liquid one, at any rate... can't forget those recovered and refurbished Shuttle SRBs now, can we?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/01/2017 11:01 pm
The first ever liquid one, at any rate... can't forget those recovered and refurbished Shuttle SRBs now, can we?
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.
Post by: Orbiter on 02/02/2017 01:01 am
Post by: deruch on 02/02/2017 02:15 am
F9 boosters aren't gas-n-go reuse yet. There's some non-publicly-defined amount of refurbishment and maybe even replacement, etc. Which means that any debate on whether to count various other boosters or not, always comes down to how one wants to define the reuse or refurbishment. How much "work" between flights disqualifies it? is an essentially arbitrary distinction that gets made by personal preference. At least until we're able to treat it as a binary condition. Either way, whether, according to one's personal opinion, other orbital class boosters have been used before or not, the achievement will still have been totally awesome! And personally, IMHO, the liquid-fueled aspect of it makes it more impressive and shouldn't be treated as an afterthought or only as a qualifier so that the F9 can be first on the mountaintop. My $0.02, YMMV.The first ever liquid one, at any rate... can't forget those recovered and refurbished Shuttle SRBs now, can we?The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/02/2017 05:00 am
F9 boosters aren't gas-n-go reuse yet.
Well sure, they aren't flying their final version that will allow them to do gas-n-go. The current version are part of their test program.
Quote
There's some non-publicly-defined amount of refurbishment and maybe even replacement, etc. Which means that any debate on whether to count various other boosters or not, always comes down to how one wants to define the reuse or refurbishment.
The 1st recovered Falcon 9 booster was put up on a launch pad, fueled up, and the engines fired off. And that is what they are designed to do, to be flown, landed, refueled and flown again. The Shuttle SRB's weren't designed to do that, they were designed to be disassembled between flights. Not the same at all.
Post by: Nomadd on 02/02/2017 05:22 am
Post by: woods170 on 02/02/2017 06:28 am
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster, well worth recovering, and if it is only to put it in the Smithsonian. Maybe with Mini-me New Shepard next to it :)Won't be put in the Smithsonian. Is not Elon's style.
Post by: guckyfan on 02/02/2017 10:48 am
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster, well worth recovering, and if it is only to put it in the Smithsonian. Maybe with Mini-me New Shepard next to it :)Won't be put in the Smithsonian. Is not Elon's style.
My understanding was that the Smithsonian would want SpaceX to build the exhibition hall along with donating the rocket. That's not Elon's style.
Post by: abaddon on 02/02/2017 03:55 pm
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.Of course it counts. It's not the same thing, but it is certainly "reuse". It is absurd to try and claim otherwise.
Shuttle SRB reuse didn't amount to much for a variety of reasons, and I firmly believe SpaceX's booster reuse will prove much more successful economically. Doesn't mean Shuttle boosters weren't reused, and they were clearly "orbital class boosters". I guess if you want to qualify it as the first orbital-class booster to be reused without disassembly and reassembly between flights that's factually accurate, if a bit long-winded for my taste...
Anyway, it is really off-topic for this thread. I'm looking forward to the first reuse of an orbital-class liquid booster (a very big achievement) happening hopefully very soon :D.
Post by: Jim on 02/02/2017 04:56 pm
Post by: envy887 on 02/02/2017 05:00 pm
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.Of course it counts. It's not the same thing, but it is certainly "reuse". It is absurd to try and claim otherwise.
Shuttle SRB reuse didn't amount to much for a variety of reasons, and I firmly believe SpaceX's booster reuse will prove much more successful economically. Doesn't mean Shuttle boosters weren't reused, and they were clearly "orbital class boosters". I guess if you want to qualify it as the first orbital-class booster to be reused without disassembly and reassembly between flights that's factually accurate, if a bit long-winded for my taste...
Anyway, it is really off-topic for this thread. I'm looking forward to the first reuse of an orbital-class liquid booster (a very big achievement) happening hopefully very soon :D.
Shuttle SRB assemblies weren't reused.
Shuttle booster SEGMENTS and components were reused, but a segment isn't a booster rocket, and boosters didn't typically consist of the same sets of segments and components. For that reason, SRB assemblies didn't have serial numbers that persisted through missions. Segments and components were matched based on hardware availability and mission scheduling. Hardware was continuously going into and out of circulation because parts that couldn't be requalified to specs were not reflown. See: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-051010a.html
A Falcon 9 is a booster rocket; the vast majority of everything that makes it a rocket is the same and goes along on every flight.
I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.
Post by: meekGee on 02/02/2017 05:50 pm
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.Of course it counts. It's not the same thing, but it is certainly "reuse". It is absurd to try and claim otherwise.
Shuttle SRB reuse didn't amount to much for a variety of reasons, and I firmly believe SpaceX's booster reuse will prove much more successful economically. Doesn't mean Shuttle boosters weren't reused, and they were clearly "orbital class boosters". I guess if you want to qualify it as the first orbital-class booster to be reused without disassembly and reassembly between flights that's factually accurate, if a bit long-winded for my taste...
Anyway, it is really off-topic for this thread. I'm looking forward to the first reuse of an orbital-class liquid booster (a very big achievement) happening hopefully very soon :D.
Shuttle SRB assemblies weren't reused.
Shuttle booster SEGMENTS and components were reused, but a segment isn't a booster rocket, and boosters didn't typically consist of the same sets of segments and components. For that reason, SRB assemblies didn't have serial numbers that persisted through missions. Segments and components were matched based on hardware availability and mission scheduling. Hardware was continuously going into and out of circulation because parts that couldn't be requalified to specs were not reflown. See: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-051010a.html
A Falcon 9 is a booster rocket; the vast majority of everything that makes it a rocket is the same and goes along on every flight.
I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.
I think the other differentiator is what happens after separation.
The SRBs, once separated, were spent. They basically fell back to earth, opened parachutes, were salvaged, and then as E887 said, taken apart and their parts reused, sometimes.
F9 remains a living and breathing vehicle. Main propulsion is active, it flies back in an active manner, all the way down to a powered tail-first landing.
It is much more of a "reusable carrier vehicle" (the way Clarke envisioned, but VTVL) than it is a "drop-away first stage".
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/02/2017 06:37 pm
People are forgetting that other than a main tank, the bulk of the STS main propulsion system was also reused. So was the avionics, secondary propulsion system and power system. Not going to include the other reused systems that are for the spacecraft portion of the STS
I don't think anyone around here has forgotten that.
Matthew
Post by: Jim on 02/02/2017 07:09 pm
People are forgetting that other than a main tank, the bulk of the STS main propulsion system was also reused. So was the avionics, secondary propulsion system and power system. Not going to include the other reused systems that are for the spacecraft portion of the STS
I don't think anyone around here has forgotten that.
Matthew
They are talking around it and only focusing on the SRB's
Post by: starhawk92 on 02/02/2017 07:11 pm
I'm pretty sure it was the guy that first strapped a rock to a stick . . . pretty sure he ate two coconuts that night . . . .
Post by: obi-wan on 02/02/2017 09:52 pm
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster, well worth recovering, and if it is only to put it in the Smithsonian. Maybe with Mini-me New Shepard next to it :)Won't be put in the Smithsonian. Is not Elon's style.
My understanding was that the Smithsonian would want SpaceX to build the exhibition hall along with donating the rocket. That's not Elon's style.
From discussions with conservators at Udvar-Hazy: they would love to have SpaceX hardware (Falcon/Dragon), but Elon wants the Smithsonian to buy them (and not at much of a discount). They can't/won't do that.
Post by: abaddon on 02/02/2017 09:59 pm
I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.So, 134 successful (as far as getting into space) Shuttle flights, so 268 possible recovered boosters (some were lost), but you claim to have some information that none of the assemblies were ever the same? I mean, the argument is silly anyway (does swapping out a Merlin engine disqualify a SpaceX booster being classified as "reused"?), but demanding someone prove that never happened to disprove your argument is sillier.
In any case: I am done, apologies for the side track. Next I will go into another thread and start a debate on whether a particular flight was a "partial failure" or "success" or "success with lost secondary" or ... just for fun :P.
Post by: deltaV on 02/02/2017 10:30 pm
From discussions with conservators at Udvar-Hazy: they would love to have SpaceX hardware (Falcon/Dragon), but Elon wants the Smithsonian to buy them (and not at much of a discount). They can't/won't do that.
I wonder if SpaceX approached the Smithsonian about buying their hardware or the Smithsonian approached SpaceX about donating hardware and SpaceX replied "no unless you pay X". If the former I think that would be bad taste on SpaceX's part. If the latter I think it would be in bad taste if and only if the asking price was substantially higher than the value that SpaceX would get from reusing the hardware.
Post by: macpacheco on 02/02/2017 10:30 pm
Falcon 9 stages are valuable for SpaceX. They shouldn't be wasting tens of millions in hardware. SpaceX already has enough publicity among those interested in space. Let people go to Hawthorne see a F9R in front of SpaceX HQ instead.My understanding was that the Smithsonian would want SpaceX to build the exhibition hall along with donating the rocket. That's not Elon's style.
From discussions with conservators at Udvar-Hazy: they would love to have SpaceX hardware (Falcon/Dragon), but Elon wants the Smithsonian to buy them (and not at much of a discount). They can't/won't do that.
But I sure would prefer we not repeat discussions that should be had on generic Falcon 9 threads instead. This is repetition, aka NOISE.
Mods can we determine that Smithsonian discussions be off topic here. Feel free to delete my post if such determinations are made.
Post by: envy887 on 02/03/2017 12:12 am
I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.So, 134 successful (as far as getting into space) Shuttle flights, so 268 possible recovered boosters (some were lost), but you claim to have some information that none of the assemblies were ever the same? I mean, the argument is silly anyway (does swapping out a Merlin engine disqualify a SpaceX booster being classified as "reused"?), but demanding someone prove that never happened to disprove your argument is sillier.
I never said that this Falcon 9 will be the first re-used orbital booster rocket, but the first to re-fly with the same serial number. As far as I can tell, every SRB was a new assembly of used and/or new segments, always with a new assembly serial number. So no particular SRB assembly was ever re-flown, although their parts were frequently reused. If one of the many knowledgeable Shuttle people here can show otherwise, I would love to see it.
And no, swapping an engine doesn't make a new Falcon 9, they can do that on the pad. If they sent it back to the production line, welded on a new LOX tank and octaweb, and sent it back out with a new serial number, it would be a new rocket assembly.
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/03/2017 02:08 am
F9 has a chance of changing the game because it's the first stage that's being reused (thus theoretically less wear and tear), it's not crewed (usually), doesn't generally waste a lot of capability (like an enormous payload bay and large crew section) when just launching satellites, it most likely will exceed STS's launch frequency (which was at most 9 per year and usually less) and perhaps by a lot, and seems to be pretty cheap even when expendable.
But it's more than fair to say that STS's reuse was at least on the same level as F9's, and a very good case can be made it was much more ambitious than F9's reuse is.
Post by: Lar on 02/03/2017 04:36 am
PS, did you really have to ask? :)
Post by: jfallen on 02/15/2017 02:45 pm
Post by: gongora on 02/15/2017 03:42 pm
I am surprised there is not more news on this. With echostar moved left, is there a projected date for this. It seems like it could go as early as 10 March based on the turn-around time planned between the next two launches.
They haven't done one launch yet from the pad. Let's see how that one goes before we worry too much about the exact dates of the next couple launches.
Post by: deruch on 02/17/2017 02:13 pm
More particularly, let's see how quickly they can turn that new pad around. Are the mods to TEL and retract procedure going to help them recycle the pad/GSE faster than they could at SLC-40?I am surprised there is not more news on this. With echostar moved left, is there a projected date for this. It seems like it could go as early as 10 March based on the turn-around time planned between the next two launches.
They haven't done one launch yet from the pad. Let's see how that one goes before we worry too much about the exact dates of the next couple launches.
Post by: gongora on 02/17/2017 02:43 pm
Do we have a SES-10 thread up yet?
https://twitter.com/SES_Satellites/status/832602692287680512
Post by: jfallen on 02/19/2017 04:15 pm
Post by: DOCinCT on 02/19/2017 05:05 pm
From Jessica Jensen, Dragon mission manager, SpaceX at the CRS-10 outbrief. First reusable of a stage 1 is SES 10 which is scheduled for March.
If they hit their 2 week turn aound time that Jessica mentioned several times, that would be a NET of March 15 (assuming Echo 23 launches before the end of this month).
Post by: Star One on 02/19/2017 06:03 pm
From Jessica Jensen, Dragon mission manager, SpaceX at the CRS-10 outbrief. First reusable of a stage 1 is SES 10 which is scheduled for March.
If they hit their 2 week turn aound time that Jessica mentioned several times, that would be a NET of March 15 (assuming Echo 23 launches before the end of this month).
If being the most important word here. I believe it when I see it.
Post by: Jcc on 02/19/2017 06:51 pm
From Jessica Jensen, Dragon mission manager, SpaceX at the CRS-10 outbrief. First reusable of a stage 1 is SES 10 which is scheduled for March.
If they hit their 2 week turn aound time that Jessica mentioned several times, that would be a NET of March 15 (assuming Echo 23 launches before the end of this month).
If being the most important word here. I believe it when I see it.
She said "about" 2 weeks to the next launch, which would push Echostar 23 to March 4th or 5th. Making Feb 28 would beat the 2 week turnaround, which they may do.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/22/2017 10:59 pm
Quote
SpaceX Opens Media Accreditation for SES-10 Mission
Press Release From: SpaceX
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX’s SES-10 mission from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch is targeted for no earlier than March.
A flight proven SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will deliver SES-10 to a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO).
SES-10 will replace AMC-3 and AMC-4 to provide enhanced coverage and significant capacity expansion over Latin America. The satellite will be positioned at 67 degrees West, pursuant to an agreement with the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), and will be used for the Simón Bolivar 2 satellite network.
Members of the media who are U.S. citizens or Permanent Resident Aliens (green card holders) and interested in covering the launch must fill out this media accreditation form by 5:00 p.m. ET, on Wednesday, March 1.
Requesting accreditation is not required of media who hold current annual press credentials issues by Kennedy Space Center, but it is appreciated for planning purposes.
For launches from LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center decides which media are credentialed to cover launches, not SpaceX. Please keep in mind, simply making the request in a timely fashion does not guarantee the request will be granted. Please be sure to provide all the information included on the SpaceX form. SpaceX typically obtains confirmation that these requests are approved about 48 hours prior to launch.
More details on the mission and pre-launch media activities will be made available at a later date closer to launch.
// end //
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=50472 (http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=50472)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/24/2017 09:25 am
Quote
Peter B. de Selding@pbdes 53m53 minutes ago
@SES_Satellites' near-term growth relies on @SpaceX, to launch 4 of 6 SES's 2017 missions. SES-10, w/ reused 1st stage, still set for March.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/835059072663711744 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/835059072663711744)
Post by: Brovane on 02/24/2017 04:17 pm
"A flight proven SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will deliver SES-10 to a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO)."
Post by: Mader Levap on 02/24/2017 07:32 pm
Post by: Brovane on 02/24/2017 10:10 pm
I think this euphemism ("flight-proven") is alredy in use for quite a while...
It has been mentioned several times but it is nice to see it on an official notification for an impending launch.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/25/2017 02:59 am
Post by: dorkmo on 02/25/2017 07:18 am
Personally I don't like the word "impending". Quite often it's followed by the word "doom"...
perhaps theres some doom and gloom in the future for expendable rockets
Post by: jfallen on 03/03/2017 02:11 pm
Post by: JasonAW3 on 03/03/2017 02:19 pm
Personally I don't like the word "impending". Quite often it's followed by the word "doom"...
What about impending surprise party?
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/03/2017 03:44 pm
Any chatter on a launch date for this one? EchoStar is set, so what should we expect for the range turn-around 2 weeks? It seems like that would put his with a NET of 26 March.
Sorry to say this, but I'm gonna expect a small delay that could push SES-10 into April. It's just like the last several missions.
Post by: cwr on 03/03/2017 09:06 pm
Any chatter on a launch date for this one? EchoStar is set, so what should we expect for the range turn-around 2 weeks? It seems like that would put his with a NET of 26 March.
Assuming that Echostar 23 launches on March 12th and CRS11 remains targeted at April 11th then allowing a 14 day pad turnaround it looks like there is a window from March 26-28.
However, this looks just like the scenario when CRS10 pulled rank over Echostar 23. I don't know the rules for this but it looks highly probable that the 26th-28th window is even less margin than that which produced the CRS10/Echostar 23 switch so I would suspect that SES 10 is probably going to be NET April 25th.
Any clarification of these rules appreciated
Carl
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/08/2017 09:25 pm
Quote
@SpaceX's Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.#SATShow
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832)
Edit: suggest we limit discussion here to SES-10 and subsequent improvements belong better in the re-usable section block 5 thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42465.msg1652024#msg1652024 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42465.msg1652024#msg1652024)
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/08/2017 10:01 pm
Quote@SpaceX's Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.#SATShow
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832)
Edit: suggest we limit discussion here to SES-10 and subsequent improvements belong better in the re-usable section block 5 thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42465.msg1652024#msg1652024 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42465.msg1652024#msg1652024)
I'm most interested in the turn around time of LC39A from the upcoming EchoStar launch and SES-10.
Can they really cram it in before CRS-11?
Post by: Brovane on 03/13/2017 05:49 pm
I don't think that the engines are a problem for a static fire, presuming that there is no damage to the plumbing or tank integrity. The issue is more overall soundness of the vehicle: Will the stage survive prolonged vibrations (IIRC, the main engine burn is ~150 seconds) plus the aerodynamic stresses transit through various atmospheric layers (in both directions) up to hypersonic speeds, both powered and unpowered? I can't blame SpaceX for checking every rivet and every joint twice at a microscopic level (and possibly with an x-ray) before risking a paying customer's payload!
SpaceX might not be just checking everything for making sure the LV is ready for a paying customer. I would hazard a guess that they are also checking everything for documentation purposes. They are building a database of what expected wear is. For example, Part-A is supposed to last X number of flights they still might check it for wear after every flight for a while to build up good documentation on what the expected rate of wear is. So this means their inspections might be going beyond just what is needed for a paying customer until they build a good library of reference.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/13/2017 07:05 pm
Ok, perhaps not, but it feels like that when report to mods come in and act like we personally approved each and every post that was made here.
So, I've moved 24 posts (that went veering off into returned boosters - right through to Shuttle, etc.) into this more general thread.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39167.msg1653351#msg1653351
This thread stays with SES-10 or I will tell the pie throwers to knock on YOUR door ;)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/16/2017 10:13 am
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/16/2017 10:19 am
So, Echostar 23 is out of the queue. How soon can we expect SpaceX to give a launch date estimate for SES-10? I'm expecting to hear a time frame between 3/30 and 4/2 myself.
Obviously the 27th has been pencilled in for a while. Post-launch pad inspection is usually a day or two after launch (hopefully, given night-time launch for Echostar, that will be tomorrow - 17th?). I wouldn't expect any revision to the 27th, if needed, until after the pad inspection. Hopefully there's minimal pad work required.
Post by: Earendil on 03/16/2017 10:48 am
If all is well with these launches and 39-A has less damage than the 1st launch, 27th is feasable, given that the booster has been readied for 4 months :)
Post by: NX-0 on 03/16/2017 03:20 pm
asking for a friend. :-P
Post by: Craig_VG on 03/16/2017 08:39 pm
(of course just the launch is historic enough, but it would be interesting to hear.)
Post by: rcoppola on 03/16/2017 08:44 pm
Have we heard anything regarding if landing will be attempted on this mission?Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
(of course just the launch is historic enough, but it would be interesting to hear.)
Post by: Craig_VG on 03/16/2017 08:47 pm
Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
Thanks, I wasn't sure as 5300kg seems to be close to limits of recoverability.
Post by: dnavas on 03/16/2017 08:50 pm
Post by: ehb on 03/16/2017 09:03 pm
I wonder what the next range approved date would be or
if there is already a backup date that could be used.
Nevertheless, I'm psyched that this is the next one up.
1st reuse of an F9 & a drone ship landing...
If they get it back, analysis should provide useful interesting engineering data.
F9 23-2 anyone?
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/16/2017 09:18 pm
Parallel operations, static fire the 23-24 or even the 25th gives the team 7+ days for the pad work.
They need to be able to do a 12 day turn around if they want a 2 week cadence. Yes tight but they claim to be aiming at this.
Post by: vanoord on 03/16/2017 09:42 pm
Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
Thanks, I wasn't sure as 5300kg seems to be close to limits of recoverability.
*If* this one is recovered, it has have a very good claim on a place in the rocket garden at KSC, surely?
Post by: pb2000 on 03/16/2017 09:50 pm
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) and were planning to try with AMOS-6 which was 5,500 kg. The consensus seems to be that they are being a little less aggressive with prop loading after AMOS-6, so a dented drone ship is still a real possibility.Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
Thanks, I wasn't sure as 5300kg seems to be close to limits of recoverability.
Post by: Callezetter on 03/16/2017 09:52 pm
Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
Thanks, I wasn't sure as 5300kg seems to be close to limits of recoverability.
*If* this one is recovered, it has have a very good claim on a place in the rocket garden at KSC, surely?
No I hope that one goes up a third time
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/16/2017 10:05 pm
It's not like all pad refurbishment needs to be completed before work in the hangar starts.Won't the static fire need to be completed by the 22nd with OA-7 scheduled for the 24th? I doubt they'd be able to static fire on the 26th without payload and then launch on the 27th.
Parallel operations, static fire the 23-24 or even the 25th gives the team 7+ days for the pad work.
They need to be able to do a 12 day turn around if they want a 2 week cadence. Yes tight but they claim to be aiming at this.
...And I suppose, even if SES-10 is range approved for the 27th, that if OA-7 is delayed past the 25th, NASA might bump SpaceX for ISS scheduling purposes. No?
Post by: gongora on 03/16/2017 10:46 pm
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...
SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.
Post by: Jet Black on 03/17/2017 02:09 pm
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...
SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.
SES-10 is 5300kg into a GTO orbit
SES-9 was 5270kg into a GTO orbit
That seems close enough!
Post by: AncientU on 03/17/2017 02:12 pm
Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
Thanks, I wasn't sure as 5300kg seems to be close to limits of recoverability.
*If* this one is recovered, it has have a very good claim on a place in the rocket garden at KSC, surely?
SES once talked of having two of their spacecraft launched by the same booster... this could be the one.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/17/2017 03:14 pm
Quote
High-power beams for #LatinAmerica and the #Caribbean – the experts explain what #SES10 will provide
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/842769569370558468 (https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/842769569370558468)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDZ2fCW5Q-M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDZ2fCW5Q-M)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/18/2017 07:08 pm
Quote
Airbus Defence and Space ships SES-10 telecom satellite to launch site
Toulouse, 16/01/2017] - SES-10, the 10th Eurostar satellite built by Airbus Defence and Space for Luxembourg-based satellite operator SES, has left the Airbus cleanrooms in Toulouse, France, and has been shipped to Cape Canaveral for its forthcoming launch by SpaceX.
SES-10 is the 45th satellite based on the highly reliable Eurostar E3000 platform and the 10th to use electric propulsion for station-keeping. It will have a launch mass of 5,300 kg and spacecraft power of 13 kW.
SES-10 will be positioned at the 67 degrees West orbital position, pursuant to an agreement between the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) and SES. The satellite will provide SES with replacement and additional capacity for direct-to-home TV broadcasting, enterprise and mobility services to Central America and South America, Mexico and the Caribbean. It will carry a payload of 55 high-power Ku-band transponder equivalents.
The satellite is equipped with frequency-agile remote-control receivers, increasing the flexibility of the ground control link. It is designed for a nominal in-orbit life of more than 15 years.
https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/airbus-defence-and-space-ships-ses-10-telecom-satellite-to-launch-site/ (https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/airbus-defence-and-space-ships-ses-10-telecom-satellite-to-launch-site/)
Post by: IanThePineapple on 03/18/2017 07:31 pm
Post by: Flying Beaver on 03/18/2017 07:37 pm
So how far back do people think the launch will be pushed?
Would love it to stick to the 27th, but 30th-31st seems more lightly. :'(
Really really hope i'm wrong.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/19/2017 06:08 am
Post by: WizZifnab on 03/19/2017 11:25 am
Really wondering if the range requirements for static fire are impacted by use of the Automated Flight Termination System. Being able to do a static fire ahead of a different launch, such as the Atlas/Cygnus. Then rollback and stack the payload while that other launch is conducted. Then finally roll to the pad fully ready for a launch in 2 days should really help. Otherwise the normal 2 day range turnaround effectively requires more like 5 days to turnaround for SpaceX.
Will this coming launch be able to utilize the new AFTS fully?
Post by: Flying Beaver on 03/19/2017 05:31 pm
Given the current stated date is only 8 days away, 'ways to go' in this case likely meaning in the next 3 days. :-)
Really wondering if the range requirements for static fire are impacted by use of the Automated Flight Termination System. Being able to do a static fire ahead of a different launch, such as the Atlas/Cygnus. Then rollback and stack the payload while that other launch is conducted. Then finally roll to the pad fully ready for a launch in 2 days should really help. Otherwise the normal 2 day range turnaround effectively requires more like 5 days to turnaround for SpaceX.
Will this coming launch be able to utilize the new AFTS fully?
Flight termination is neither used or armed during static fire.
In other news. Per Instagram. As of this morning the Strongback is in its post launch horizontal checkout position. With the launch table still in it's launch position. To get static fire done on the 23rd rollback to the HIF would probably have to be performed within the next 48 hr.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/19/2017 05:38 pm
We're still awaiting news of the pad inspection and timing of the OA-7 CRS flight could interfere with the time SpaceX would ideally want the static fire. So yes they want the 27th but a way to go yet before it's clear whether that's feasible.
I think we'll know by close of play on Monday how this is going to pan out.
Post by: WizZifnab on 03/19/2017 07:50 pm
Flight termination is neither used or armed during static fire.Thanks. So regardless of AFTS, is SpaceX able to do a static fire ahead of a separate launch, rollback during that launch and stack, and then finally launch approx 2 days after that prior launch. Or is it really an affective 5 days after a prior launch before SpaceX can launch?
In other news. Per Instagram. As of this morning the Strongback is in its post launch horizontal checkout position. With the launch table still in it's launch position. To get static fire done on the 23rd rollback to the HIF would probably have to be performed within the next 48 hr.
Also, will the SES-10 launch be using the new AFTS?
Post by: docmordrid on 03/19/2017 10:11 pm
Well, I don't know for sure, but as I understand it, all future Falcon flights will have AFTS and in the near future also Atlas and Delta.
Florida Today..... (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/)
Quote
United Launch Alliance, the Range’s other most frequent user, will continue to fly traditional termination systems on Atlas and Delta rockets, while designing an automated system into its new Vulcan rocket, which could fly by 2019.
Post by: Flying Beaver on 03/19/2017 10:17 pm
Flight termination is neither used or armed during static fire.Thanks. So regardless of AFTS, is SpaceX able to do a static fire ahead of a separate launch, rollback during that launch and stack, and then finally launch approx 2 days after that prior launch. Or is it really an affective 5 days after a prior launch before SpaceX can launch?
In other news. Per Instagram. As of this morning the Strongback is in its post launch horizontal checkout position. With the launch table still in it's launch position. To get static fire done on the 23rd rollback to the HIF would probably have to be performed within the next 48 hr.
Also, will the SES-10 launch be using the new AFTS?
Exactly. They still need time to mount the rocket to the TEL. Static fire really needs to be on the 23rd if they are going to let Atlas fly and then get SES-10 mounted on top. The 25th would be cutting it too close.
Post by: Hauerg on 03/20/2017 05:03 am
Flight termination is neither used or armed during static fire.Thanks. So regardless of AFTS, is SpaceX able to do a static fire ahead of a separate launch, rollback during that launch and stack, and then finally launch approx 2 days after that prior launch. Or is it really an affective 5 days after a prior launch before SpaceX can launch?
In other news. Per Instagram. As of this morning the Strongback is in its post launch horizontal checkout position. With the launch table still in it's launch position. To get static fire done on the 23rd rollback to the HIF would probably have to be performed within the next 48 hr.
Also, will the SES-10 launch be using the new AFTS?
"No" seems to be the answer.
"The company’s next launch, targeted for 1:34 a.m. Tuesday, is expected to be the last time a Falcon rocket relies on an officer ready at the console as part of a traditional flight termination system." Florida Today
Well, being an old rocket might have something to do with it.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/20/2017 06:20 am
Will this coming launch be able to utilize the new AFTS fully?
Here's what the 45th said after the Echostar 23 launch:
Quote
This launch marks the last SpaceX Falcon 9 launch utilizing ground-based mission flight control personnel and equipment in the mission control center. All future SpaceX rockets will utilize an Autonomous Flight Safety System which replaces the ground-based mission flight control personnel and equipment with on-board Positioning, Navigation and Timing sources and decision logic.
http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1120143/45th-sw-supports-successful-falcon-9-echostar-xxiii-launch (http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1120143/45th-sw-supports-successful-falcon-9-echostar-xxiii-launch)
We know F9 rockets have had AFTS hardware for a while, but not operating as primary. Given SpaceX have spend several months refurbishing the booster to be re-used for SES-10, I guess that did whatever else they needed to make AFTS primary too.
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 03/20/2017 11:20 am
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...
SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.
SES-10 is 5300kg into a GTO orbit
SES-9 was 5270kg into a GTO orbit
That seems close enough!
Except that SES-10 is *NOT* going into a GTO. It is going into a sub-synchronous transfer orbit (i.e. - the apogee is significantly below GEO altitude). SES-10 will probably use on-board propulsion to raise its apogee to GEO altitude before beginning the usual perigee-raising maneuvers to transition to GEO. To quote Gunter Krebs: "As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/20/2017 11:53 am
Suggests to me that SpaceX will have the range for an SES-10 static fire before then, so maybe a launch early next week is still on?
Edit: just realised, is reference to 25th UTC rather than local?
Post by: spacenut on 03/20/2017 11:57 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/20/2017 12:04 pm
Someone let us know if SES-10 is still on for March 27th. That is only 7 days from now.
When we know, you'll know. There's no need to ask in the style of "If I don't ask, they won't tell me" ;) Next update will be later today.
Also, the thread title is the subject, so to other people, please keep on topic.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/20/2017 12:25 pm
OA-7 CRS launch appears to have moved back to Saturday 25th (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1656422#msg1656422).
Suggests to me that SpaceX will have the range for an SES-10 static fire before then, so maybe a launch early next week is still on?
Edit: just realised, is reference to 25th UTC rather than local?
As we saw with Delta IV and Echostar XXIII, SpaceX might be able to static fire on the 23rd with Atlas V going on the 24th. I say *might* because SLC-41 is a lot closer to LC-39A than SLC-37 is. Also, Atlas will be rolled out on the morning of the 22nd, so there might be constraints present between an Atlas V on the 41 pad and a Falcon 9 static fire on 39A that weren't present for WGS-9 (when F9 static fire was roughly 24hrs before WGS-9 launch).
Post by: gongora on 03/20/2017 12:37 pm
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...
SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.
SES-10 is 5300kg into a GTO orbit
SES-9 was 5270kg into a GTO orbit
That seems close enough!
Except that SES-10 is *NOT* going into a GTO. It is going into a sub-synchronous transfer orbit (i.e. - the apogee is significantly below GEO altitude). SES-10 will probably use on-board propulsion to raise its apogee to GEO altitude before beginning the usual perigee-raising maneuvers to transition to GEO. To quote Gunter Krebs: "As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."
I'd like to see how recent the source is for that. If you look at the two GTO commsat campaigns (including AMOS-6) before and two (expected) after SES-10, you might notice SES-10 is the lightest of those 5 payloads.
Post by: Craig_VG on 03/20/2017 07:19 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1656595#msg1656595
Post by: smoliarm on 03/20/2017 07:28 pm
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...
SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.
SES-10 is 5300kg into a GTO orbit
SES-9 was 5270kg into a GTO orbit
That seems close enough!
Except that SES-10 is *NOT* going into a GTO. It is going into a sub-synchronous transfer orbit (i.e. - the apogee is significantly below GEO altitude). SES-10 will probably use on-board propulsion to raise its apogee to GEO altitude before beginning the usual perigee-raising maneuvers to transition to GEO. To quote Gunter Krebs: "As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."
I'd like to see how recent the source is for that. If you look at the two GTO commsat campaigns (including AMOS-6) before and two (expected) after SES-10, you might notice SES-10 is the lightest of those 5 payloads.
According to WebArchive, the statement
Quote
"As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."was on that page ("SES-10") from the very beginning. The first archived copy
https://web.archive.org/web/20140304234825/http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-10.htm
is dated March 4, 2014.
At that time Falcon 9 v1.1 was flying, and its GTO performance was about 4.8 t (IIRC).
So, my guess is that this note on Gunter's page is outdated.
Post by: Skyrocket on 03/20/2017 07:30 pm
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...
SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.
SES-10 is 5300kg into a GTO orbit
SES-9 was 5270kg into a GTO orbit
That seems close enough!
Except that SES-10 is *NOT* going into a GTO. It is going into a sub-synchronous transfer orbit (i.e. - the apogee is significantly below GEO altitude). SES-10 will probably use on-board propulsion to raise its apogee to GEO altitude before beginning the usual perigee-raising maneuvers to transition to GEO. To quote Gunter Krebs: "As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."
I'd like to see how recent the source is for that. If you look at the two GTO commsat campaigns (including AMOS-6) before and two (expected) after SES-10, you might notice SES-10 is the lightest of those 5 payloads.
According to WebArchive, the statementQuote"As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."was on that page ("SES-10") from the very beginning. The first archived copy
https://web.archive.org/web/20140304234825/http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ses-10.htm
is dated March 4, 2014.
At that time Falcon 9 v1.1 was flying, and its GTO performance was about 4.8 t (IIRC).
So, my guess is that this note on Gunter's page is outdated.
Yep, indeed, i have to admit, that this entry is outdated. It refers to v1.1 version, which was flying at the time of the launch contract. v1.2 has enough performance for a 5.3 t satellite. I will update my page to avoid confusion.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 03/20/2017 07:48 pm
Post by: jpo234 on 03/20/2017 08:02 pm
OA-7 is now the 27th, we lost the launch date boys.Is this a NET date or a range reservation? Chris said earlier that SpaceX has reserved the range for the 27th.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 03/20/2017 08:05 pm
OA-7 is now the 27th, we lost the launch date boys.Is this a NET date or a range reservation? Chris said earlier that SpaceX has reserved the range for the 27th.
NET March 27th, SES-10 is now NET the 29th.
Post by: Hankelow8 on 03/20/2017 08:06 pm
Post by: mn on 03/20/2017 08:21 pm
Per L2, SpaceX has March 27 (Window 1658-2058 Eastern) *Range Approved* for the SES-10 launch on the historic Falcon 9R 1021 (re-)launch!
So either the range approval was contingent on OA-7 launching earlier, or SpaceX informed the range that they were not going to be ready for the 27th and gave up the date. Or something else entirely...
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/20/2017 09:26 pm
...And I suppose, even if SES-10 is range approved for the 27th, that if OA-7 is delayed past the 25th, NASA might bump SpaceX for ISS scheduling purposes. No?
If your primary customer asks you to defer the range for them to meet their complex schedule, I expect you do it. Especially if your launch is from their property.
Post by: envy887 on 03/20/2017 09:35 pm
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/20/2017 10:52 pm
The mission patch has a sooty booster under a bright white upper stage. That's awesome :D
I like the B1021-2 label.
Where do you see that label?
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/20/2017 11:20 pm
The mission patch has a sooty booster under a bright white upper stage. That's awesome :D
I like the B1021-2 label.
Where do you see that label?
Since envy887 mentioned sooty booster I assumed he was referring to this one.
https://spacexnow.com/patches/ezekiel-10-3-17/SES-10.png
But I could be wrong.
That's not the patch posted in the Updates thread (which looks a lot more like prior SpaceX mission patches than the one you linked to).
Post by: Joffan on 03/20/2017 11:24 pm
Since envy887 mentioned sooty booster I assumed he was referring to this one.
https://spacexnow.com/patches/ezekiel-10-3-17/SES-10.png
But I could be wrong.
I think everyone else was looking at the update thread.
We've got the patch!
Post by: JBF on 03/20/2017 11:25 pm
Since envy887 mentioned sooty booster I assumed he was referring to this one.
https://spacexnow.com/patches/ezekiel-10-3-17/SES-10.png
But I could be wrong.
I think everyone else was looking at the update thread.
We've got the patch!
I think you are all correct. Killing my original comment.
Post by: baldusi on 03/21/2017 12:52 am
Post by: wardy89 on 03/21/2017 08:13 am
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/21/2017 11:24 am
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 03/21/2017 01:14 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/21/2017 01:22 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/there-and-back-again-spacex-to-make-history-by-re-flying-orbital-rocket/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/there-and-back-again-spacex-to-make-history-by-re-flying-orbital-rocket/)
Post by: gongora on 03/21/2017 03:19 pm
Just so that you are aware, my information regarding the sub-synchronous transfer orbit is dated 13 March 2017.
From what source?
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/21/2017 03:24 pm
...And I suppose, even if SES-10 is range approved for the 27th, that if OA-7 is delayed past the 25th, NASA might bump SpaceX for ISS scheduling purposes. No?
If your primary customer asks you to defer the range for them to meet their complex schedule, I expect you do it. Especially if your launch is from their property.
Copying this over from the L2 thread to shed some light on this.
So a couple of points here regarding how the range decisions are made, even when customers have approved dates.
1. It's in everyone's best interest to be a team player. While SpaceX clearly had the range approved for SES-10 on 3/27 (regardless of Atlas) and could have said "No. We booked the range. Tough cookies", it was in their best interest to agree to a two day slip to allow ULA, Orbital ATK, and NASA to launch the OA-7 mission to the ISS on 3/27 instead. You don't want to be the player on the field that refuses to play well with others because sooner or later you're going to need the same type of consideration you're currently giving others. Besides, if they had refused, it then would have gone to the 45th Space Wing for arbitration, and ULA/Atlas V/OA-7 would have won because...
2. Missions to the ISS tend to take priority over non-governmental flights.
3. What happened here was an internal discussion between all four companies involved along with the 45th Space Wing to determine how best to handle the Atlas V slip and still accommodate everyone. Also, there was likely an understanding in place last week that should Atlas slip by a few more days, so too would SES-10 slip accordingly to keep Atlas/OA-7 the priority.
4. Keep in mind that these sorts of adjustments to the Range schedule happen all the time. The reason this seems more pronounced is due to the short turnaround time between the launches.
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 03/21/2017 04:41 pm
They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...
SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.
SES-10 is 5300kg into a GTO orbit
SES-9 was 5270kg into a GTO orbit
That seems close enough!
Except that SES-10 is *NOT* going into a GTO. It is going into a sub-synchronous transfer orbit (i.e. - the apogee is significantly below GEO altitude). SES-10 will probably use on-board propulsion to raise its apogee to GEO altitude before beginning the usual perigee-raising maneuvers to transition to GEO. To quote Gunter Krebs: "As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."
I'd like to see how recent the source is for that. If you look at the two GTO commsat campaigns (including AMOS-6) before and two (expected) after SES-10, you might notice SES-10 is the lightest of those 5 payloads.
I have confirmed with SpaceX that SES-10 WILL be deployed into a 3 rev/day, sub-synchronous transfer orbit.
Post by: gongora on 03/21/2017 05:01 pm
I have confirmed with SpaceX that SES-10 WILL be deployed into a 3 rev/day, sub-synchronous transfer orbit.
That could be an interesting clue regarding how much they can launch with drone ship recovery using the current version of the booster and current loading procedures.
Post by: baldusi on 03/21/2017 05:30 pm
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 03/21/2017 05:44 pm
I have confirmed with SpaceX that SES-10 WILL be deployed into a 3 rev/day, sub-synchronous transfer orbit.
That could be an interesting clue regarding how much they can launch with drone ship recovery using the current version of the booster and current loading procedures.
The same SpaceX source that confirmed a sub-synchronous transfer orbit just provided me with contradictory information. The latest shows a slightly super-synchronous transfer orbit (the orbital Period of the transfer orbit changed from 8 hours, 4 minutes to 11 hours 34 minutes), and yes, they're talking about the same launch....
Post by: WmThomas on 03/21/2017 06:02 pm
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
Weren't we informed that the AFTS was running (without command authority) on past launches that used the old FTS. So perhaps the Flight 23 core already had the AFTS hardware.
Or, if not, four months of rehab work could have involved installing AFTS, couldn't it?
Post by: stcks on 03/21/2017 06:03 pm
The same SpaceX source that confirmed a sub-synchronous transfer orbit just provided me with contradictory information. The latest shows a slightly super-synchronous transfer orbit (the orbital Period of the transfer orbit changed from 8 hours, 4 minutes to 11 hours 34 minutes), and yes, they're talking about the same launch....
11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/21/2017 06:37 pm
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.
As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.
Post by: baldusi on 03/21/2017 06:51 pm
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.
As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.
I'm just saying that it might just have happened that the refurbishment of the core included, at least, the implementation of the new AFTS.
Post by: hans_ober on 03/22/2017 01:03 am
The same SpaceX source that confirmed a sub-synchronous transfer orbit just provided me with contradictory information. The latest shows a slightly super-synchronous transfer orbit (the orbital Period of the transfer orbit changed from 8 hours, 4 minutes to 11 hours 34 minutes), and yes, they're talking about the same launch....
11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.
Identical performance to SES-9 would indicate that loading procedures hasn't hurt performance significantly. MECO velocity should confirm this.
Post by: deruch on 03/22/2017 01:16 am
Per the Air Force, the AFTS was tested on 13 flights in "shadow mode" prior to being activated for primary FTS on CRS-10. Ergo, assuming all those flights were on F9s, the booster for the SES-10 mission should already have all the necessary hardware/software in place for using AFTS. The upper stage which is new obviously does.The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
The comment about the 13 previous missions was given by Gen. Monteith, 45th Space Wing Commander: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/
Post by: mme on 03/22/2017 01:27 am
...Identical performance to SES-9 would indicate that loading procedures hasn't hurt performance significantly. MECO velocity should confirm this.
11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.
Edit: Never mind, somehow I thought I was on the EchoStar thread.
Post by: envy887 on 03/22/2017 01:31 am
They are trying to land after launching SES-10, so those will be similar.They tried to land SES-9 so there was propellent reserved for the boostback, re-entry and landing burns....Identical performance to SES-9 would indicate that loading procedures hasn't hurt performance significantly. MECO velocity should confirm this.
11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.
Post by: NX-0 on 03/22/2017 10:51 am
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/22/2017 11:36 am
RE: The patch in the update thread...
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Yes.
Post by: StarTracker on 03/22/2017 12:40 pm
RE: The patch in the update thread...
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Good eye. I was looking for (expecting?) something move obvious. Say, for example, a giant "2" emblazoned on the 1st stage, or a code in the star field alluding to the re-use. The gray tinge is more subtle than I expected.
Post by: SLC on 03/22/2017 02:48 pm
... and, to my eyes, the legs look white, like S2 and fairing. Does that mean they're new? Or am I pushing this one stage too far?RE: The patch in the update thread...Good eye. I was looking for (expecting?) something move obvious. Say, for example, a giant "2" emblazoned on the 1st stage, or a code in the star field alluding to the re-use. The gray tinge is more subtle than I expected.
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/22/2017 03:04 pm
... and, to my eyes, the legs look white, like S2 and fairing. Does that mean they're new? Or am I pushing this one stage too far?RE: The patch in the update thread...Good eye. I was looking for (expecting?) something move obvious. Say, for example, a giant "2" emblazoned on the 1st stage, or a code in the star field alluding to the re-use. The gray tinge is more subtle than I expected.
Is it just me, or is the S2 and faring lilly white and the S1 is a light shade of gray?
(Denoting the fact that it is 'flight proven')
If memory serves, SpaceX wants to re-use the legs, and it's on a long list of components to figure out in the long term. I think you're on the money.
Post by: Nomadd on 03/22/2017 05:21 pm
... and, to my eyes, the legs look white, like S2 and fairing. Does that mean they're new? Or am I pushing this one stage too far?Upgraded legs are part of the final block. Since the originals for this stage were old ones, they might have been replaced. That doesn't mean they'll need to replace them once Block 5 is running.
Post by: ChrisC on 03/22/2017 07:45 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/22/2017 07:52 pm
Per this update in the Atlas thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1657412#msg1657412), OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
Gut feeling is no, they would have realigned everything to the new date, but asking.
Post by: Mike_1179 on 03/22/2017 07:59 pm
Per this update in the Atlas thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1657412#msg1657412), OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
Gut feeling is no, they would have realigned everything to the new date, but asking.
And "they" is not just SpaceX but the range employees as well. If you make plans to have an 18 hour day later in the week (overtime, shifting hours, etc), it can be rather difficult to re-arrange that on 2 days notice unless you have a really good reason.
--edit--
Oh yeah, forgot about ASDS too. Don't know how long it takes them to get on station and get everything set up to catch a booster, but that timing is already in work too.
Post by: AncientU on 03/22/2017 08:06 pm
Post by: dglow on 03/22/2017 08:13 pm
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/22/2017 08:25 pm
Regarding the range team moving between launches, is SES-10 flying with auto-FTS or not?
Previously discussed without solid confirmation either way, however it seems likely that it will.
The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.
As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.
I'm just saying that it might just have happened that the refurbishment of the core included, at least, the implementation of the new AFTS.
&
Per the Air Force, the AFTS was tested on 13 flights in "shadow mode" prior to being activated for primary FTS on CRS-10. Ergo, assuming all those flights were on F9s, the booster for the SES-10 mission should already have all the necessary hardware/software in place for using AFTS. The upper stage which is new obviously does.
The comment about the 13 previous missions was given by Gen. Monteith, 45th Space Wing Commander: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/
Post by: georgegassaway on 03/22/2017 08:36 pm
To move the static fire 3 days early to the 23rd...... today is the 21st. So they'd have two days to have it ready to roll out rather than the four they've planned on. I've never noted SpaceX to have things ready AHEAD of time. Otherwise there'd be a 2nd landing pad and 39A would have been ready for a Falcon by last fall (when indeed both were long overdue from original plan anyway). Just sayin'. :)
At any rate, looking very forward to this. I want to see it fly soon. Although if there were some issues that caused it to be delayed a couple of weeks, to April 12th, that would be a pretty cool triple-header date. :) Almost, but not quite worth the wait.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/22/2017 08:50 pm
Regarding the range team moving between launches, is SES-10 flying with auto-FTS or not?
Previously discussed without solid confirmation either way, however it seems likely that it will.The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?
Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?
There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?
AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?
1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.
As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.
I'm just saying that it might just have happened that the refurbishment of the core included, at least, the implementation of the new AFTS.
&Per the Air Force, the AFTS was tested on 13 flights in "shadow mode" prior to being activated for primary FTS on CRS-10. Ergo, assuming all those flights were on F9s, the booster for the SES-10 mission should already have all the necessary hardware/software in place for using AFTS. The upper stage which is new obviously does.
The comment about the 13 previous missions was given by Gen. Monteith, 45th Space Wing Commander: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/
It's flying with AFTS. Source: Brig. Gen. Monteith of the 45th Space Wing who specifically stated Saturday night that Echostar XXIII was the last time SpaceX would fly a traditional FTS.
UPDATE: Updating this after some people have already like this to include the source.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/22/2017 08:56 pm
To move the static fire 3 days early to the 23rd...... today is the 21st. So they'd have two days to have it ready to roll out rather than the four they've planned on. I've never noted SpaceX to have things ready AHEAD of time. Otherwise there'd be a 2nd landing pad and 39A would have been ready for a Falcon by last fall (when indeed both were long overdue from original plan anyway). Just sayin'. :)
I agree the likelihood of SpaceX getting 3/27 back AND being able to meet that date are slim, though not impossible. And I get that this is your overall point. But let's not compare apples and oranges to arrive at that conclusion. A mission that was already processing toward 3/27 with a rocket and pad and personnel and Range ready to support a 3/27 launch is not at all the same as EPA regulations/permits/etc. needed to for brand new landing pad construction, nor is it the same as building a brand new pad while juggling other issues and flights.
Post by: dglow on 03/22/2017 09:53 pm
Post by: Brovane on 03/22/2017 10:42 pm
Per this update in the Atlas thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1657412#msg1657412), OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
No need to rush the process flow, just because you can.
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/22/2017 11:11 pm
Per this update in the Atlas thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1657412#msg1657412), OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
No need to rush the process flow, just because you can.
Who said to rush? The 27th was the range confirmed date until 48 hours ago...
Post by: gongora on 03/22/2017 11:37 pm
Post by: deruch on 03/22/2017 11:51 pm
The Eastern Range may not be the only organization that could eventually have problems with high launch rates, SpaceX still doesn't have an FAA license for SES-10 flight yet.By the time that they are really getting into the high launch rates, SpaceX should be freezing their design (i.e. Block 5) and therefore will very likely switch to a few Operator-type launch licenses (LLO) as opposed to using Specific-type licenses (LLS) and repeatedly revising it for new launches--they'll need more than one LLO to account for different launch sites and various mission types (LEO/GTO). Once they do that, they will be able to launch an unlimited* number of payloads without having to keep reapplying (so long as the payloads meet the requirements for that LLO license).
*LLO licenses are valid for 5 year terms, so they would still have to renew them periodically. Additional benefit that LLS licenses are only valid for 2 years.
edit: added note about term length.
Post by: mme on 03/22/2017 11:51 pm
The Eastern Range may not be the only organization that could eventually have problems with high launch rates, SpaceX still doesn't have an FAA license for SES-10 flight yet.I feel like people worry about the FAA license every launch and every launch they get the license.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/22/2017 11:59 pm
The Eastern Range may not be the only organization that could eventually have problems with high launch rates, SpaceX still doesn't have an FAA license for SES-10 flight yet.
FAA licenses to SpaceX are not issued - historically - until a day or two before launch. This is absolutely nothing new, and it 100% is not an issue.
Post by: WizZifnab on 03/23/2017 01:35 am
The gain in moving the launch cycle forward is for all the other launches that they have queued up. Including other launches utilizing the range. Each little delay adds up. Gaining a day or so here could reduce the impact of a day lost later for something else. So its more like why wait if you don't have too.Per this update in the Atlas thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1657412#msg1657412), OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
No need to rush the process flow, just because you can.
That said, if there are specific reasons they can't or should't try to move up, then of course don't.
But its a reasonable thought.
Post by: meekGee on 03/23/2017 01:54 am
The gain in moving the launch cycle forward is for all the other launches that they have queued up. Including other launches utilizing the range. Each little delay adds up. Gaining a day or so here could reduce the impact of a day lost later for something else. So its more like why wait if you don't have too.Per this update in the Atlas thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41564.msg1657412#msg1657412), OA-7 is now delayed "indefinitely". Can SpaceX move up to March 27th now?
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
No need to rush the process flow, just because you can.
That said, if there are specific reasons they can't or should't try to move up, then of course don't.
But its a reasonable thought.
How much is the date for the next launch affected by this one?
Right now, the rocket is occupying the TEL, but the beginning of the flow is done on dollies, right?
If the rocket is ready and is just waiting for the range, can't the pad hands start the flow on the next one?
Post by: ehb on 03/23/2017 02:56 am
an associated mental cost above and beyond simple time accounting. They were
just told that there are two more days and now we are suggesting to change it back?
In this situation, my feeling is the best choice would be to keep the 29th, it's soon enough.
Post by: georgegassaway on 03/23/2017 04:45 am
I agree the likelihood of SpaceX getting 3/27 back AND being able to meet that date are slim, though not impossible. And I get that this is your overall point. But let's not compare apples and oranges to arrive at that conclusion. A mission that was already processing toward 3/27 with a rocket and pad and personnel and Range ready to support a 3/27 launch is not at all the same as EPA regulations/permits/etc. needed to for brand new landing pad construction, nor is it the same as building a brand new pad while juggling other issues and flights.Good point. However if one wants to fly a rocket in say 6 months, one should be planning to have everything else ready by the time 6 months arrives (The EPA thing is so silly to wait so long to even file anything and be stuck for months without being able to start the work. But that's part of why I don't see FH till Q1 2018 anyway, not just due to the 2nd landing pad thing, only one of many factors. I'd like for it to be earlier.....). There are certainly many other slips of less notariety that have occurred, of a type that would be more direct apples to apples comparisons that could be made.
Anyway back to this launch, I will note that they originally were planning on the 27th, before Echostar's launch slipped two days. So the later slip of this to the 29th (2 days) seemed inevitable, regardless of range date conflicts, many expected a slip (they had never done back-to-back launches in that short a timeframe and Echostar was only the 2nd launch from 39A. Though the "throwback" of the TE has to help, and they may have learned some other things from LC-40 and Vandenberg to design 39A's Falcon Roost to be easier & faster to repair/prepare between flights).
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/23/2017 10:17 am
Post by: douglas100 on 03/23/2017 11:03 am
How much is the date for the next launch affected by this one?
Right now, the rocket is occupying the TEL, but the beginning of the flow is done on dollies, right?
If the rocket is ready and is just waiting for the range, can't the pad hands start the flow on the next one?
In principle it sounds possible. But the presence of the TEL in the hangar might restrict exactly what ops can be carried out on the next vehicle in the flow. Width wise there should be plenty of room for a second vehicle, but the TEL takes up almost the whole width of the hangar at the end nearest the pad. That might restrict having a fully assembled first and second stage on the floor lengthwise. However as soon as the TEL has rolled out there should be no restrictions on working on the next vehicle (apart from on static fire and launch days, of course!)
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/23/2017 11:51 am
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2017 12:50 pm
Right now, the rocket is occupying the TEL, but the beginning of the flow is done on dollies, right?
If the rocket is ready and is just waiting for the range, can't the pad hands start the flow on the next one?
TEL occupies the space where the dollies are.
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/23/2017 01:05 pm
Right now, the rocket is occupying the TEL, but the beginning of the flow is done on dollies, right?
If the rocket is ready and is just waiting for the range, can't the pad hands start the flow on the next one?
TEL occupies the space where the dollies are.
When the TE rolls in, how many first stages can they fit in the HIF? And do second stages fit as well?
Post by: spacenut on 03/23/2017 01:17 pm
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/23/2017 01:18 pm
When the TE rolls in, how many first stages can they fit in the HIF? And do second stages fit as well?
I'm guessing that there is enough room to at least store (but not necessarily work on) two other stacks because of the space needed to accommodate FH.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/23/2017 01:21 pm
I'm confused. Is Atlas now delayed? What does it do for SpaceX? Is it still on for the 27th? If so what time? Nothing on SpaceX website.
According to Orbital-ATK (https://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/feature-stories/OA7-Mission-Page/default.aspx?prid=180), the launch has been postponed indefinitely due to a fault on the Atlas-V. It won't take long for that delay to slip over 3/29 and for SES-10 to be the next spacecraft cleared to launch. There is no question of SpaceX being asked (or consenting) to indefinitely delay launching their customer's payload due to another provider's technical problems.
Post by: mn on 03/23/2017 02:28 pm
I'm confused. Is Atlas now delayed? What does it do for SpaceX? Is it still on for the 27th? If so what time? Nothing on SpaceX website.
I suspect you missed some updates. This launch WAS tentatively scheduled for the 27th but got pushed to the 29th by OA-7. Now that OA-7 is delayed there is discussion of this launch possibly coming back to the 27th.
(SpaceX never confirmed that they will be ready for the 27th after the Echostar Launch, so this discussion is largely hypothetical)
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/23/2017 02:44 pm
I guess that I'm kind of surprised that anyone would consider an ISS resupply flight to be a lower priority than a comsat launch. The time criticality of the two payloads cannot be seriously compared.
Every day a satellite launch is delayed costs revenue. Not the same for the ISS supply flight. There are stocks of food and water and oxygen to last quite some time on the ISS. Hence the delay after the SpaceX RUD wasn't a huge problem.
And late load cargo won;t have been loaded yet.
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2017 02:48 pm
And late load cargo won;t have been loaded yet.
It was loaded days before it left the processing facility.
Post by: mn on 03/23/2017 02:55 pm
I guess that I'm kind of surprised that anyone would consider an ISS resupply flight to be a lower priority than a comsat launch. The time criticality of the two payloads cannot be seriously compared.
Every day a satellite launch is delayed costs revenue. Not the same for the ISS supply flight. There are stocks of food and water and oxygen to last quite some time on the ISS. Hence the delay after the SpaceX RUD wasn't a huge problem.
And late load cargo won;t have been loaded yet.
A: I think that when a ISS launch takes precedence over a comsat launch (as is CRS-10 pulling rank over Echostar 23) it is more often because of the complexity of the ISS schedule than an urgent need for something to arrive at the ISS.
B: for this launch I don't see anyone suggesting that the ISS launch is a lower priority, not sure where you saw that. This launch was pushed back to make room for OA-7.
Post by: Thorny on 03/23/2017 02:55 pm
The Atlas launch is delayed, but not indefinitely. That word was used by the OP.
"Indefinite" simply means no new date was set, which is the case here.
Post by: baldusi on 03/23/2017 03:58 pm
The Eastern Range may not be the only organization that could eventually have problems with high launch rates, SpaceX still doesn't have an FAA license for SES-10 flight yet.
FAA licenses to SpaceX are not issued - historically - until a day or two before launch. This is absolutely nothing new, and it 100% is not an issue.
Do the FAA license take the LRR result into consideration or is it because of other reasons that is issued at the point in the timeline?
Post by: Firehawk153 on 03/23/2017 04:57 pm
Post by: cscott on 03/23/2017 05:03 pm
FAA License for SpaceX is like the hydrogen vent fin for Atlas V....take a drink....At least the nozzle stiffener ring questions have abated somewhat. Though if you want to get drunk, take a shot every time someone asks about a visible chunk of ice after a launch (especially around SECO and relight).
Post by: manoweb on 03/23/2017 06:01 pm
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
The gain is something that can make the difference between a thriving company and bankruptcy. If the backlog is too long, it's going to be harder for new customers to sign up and have cash flow. SpaceX expenses are huge and the are investing in a lot of directions; having fresh money coming in is vital.
Every schedule change adjusts timelines and employee expectations and there is
an associated mental cost above and beyond simple time accounting. They were
just told that there are two more days and now we are suggesting to change it back?
In all seriousness, if that is a problem for the employees, they should probably apply for a government job...
I guess that I'm kind of surprised that anyone would consider an ISS resupply flight to be a lower priority than a comsat launch. The time criticality of the two payloads cannot be seriously compared.
What would be the reason that a government launch to ISS cannot be seriously compared to a commercial one? Both have equal importance, for different reasons.
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2017 06:16 pm
In all seriousness, if that is a problem for the employees, they should probably apply for a government job...
In all seriousness, you are wrong on both accounts. People have lives outside of work. I have no problem stopping my life and going all out supporting a launch, but that only happens a few times a year for me. If the launch frequency is more than one a month, then the manpower has to be enough where people can plan a life (i.e. if it is not launching on a certain crew's shift, then the next crew has to pick it up).
And why the snipe on government job?
Post by: Folgers25 on 03/23/2017 07:50 pm
In all seriousness, if that is a problem for the employees, they should probably apply for a government job...
In all seriousness, you are wrong on both accounts. People have lives outside of work. I have no problem stopping my life and going all out supporting a launch, but that only happens a few times a year for me. If the launch frequency is more than one a month, then the manpower has to be enough where people can plan a life (i.e. if it is not launching on a certain crew's shift, then the next crew has to pick it up).
And why the snipe on government job?
Word.
There is only so much you can safely ask out of your people. In critical operations like aviation (and I presume space launch) human fatigue is serious business.
That being said, if they need more sets of eyes and hands... then put me in coach.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/23/2017 08:34 pm
There is only so much you can safely ask out of your people. In critical operations like aviation (and I presume space launch) human fatigue is serious business.
Exactly. I often listen to LiveATC.net streaming audio during my work commute - helps ease the road rage when traffic is snarled on the interstate to know SOMEONE professional is controlling some kind of traffic nearby, lol. That said, you'll note if you listen to ATC much that controllers at a busy airfield only handle short shifts at any one station (e.g., Tower, Ground, Arrivals/Departures from one direction or another, etc.). For instance, at BNA which is local to me, Approach and Departure controllers may handle one station for only 15 - 30 minutes during busy morning and afternoon/evening hours before rotating to another station. That's to keep them mentally fresh and prevent them from becoming too focused on any one situation or aircraft at the expense of others in their responsibility.
Post by: Brovane on 03/23/2017 08:39 pm
What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
The gain is something that can make the difference between a thriving company and bankruptcy. If the backlog is too long, it's going to be harder for new customers to sign up and have cash flow. SpaceX expenses are huge and the are investing in a lot of directions; having fresh money coming in is vital.
What makes you think that SpaceX is anywhere near bankruptcy?
Shotwell said during the press conference before the CRS-10 launch, SpaceX is extremely healthy financially and has no debt. From a financial perspective SpaceX is extremely strong.
Post by: Nomadd on 03/23/2017 11:50 pm
Maybe you should try reading all the words. He didn't say anything like that. He was just making a general, perfectly true, observation that applies to lot of companies.What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
The gain is something that can make the difference between a thriving company and bankruptcy. If the backlog is too long, it's going to be harder for new customers to sign up and have cash flow. SpaceX expenses are huge and the are investing in a lot of directions; having fresh money coming in is vital.
What makes you think that SpaceX is anywhere near bankruptcy?
Shotwell said during the press conference before the CRS-10 launch, SpaceX is extremely healthy financially and has no debt. From a financial perspective SpaceX is extremely strong.
Post by: Brovane on 03/24/2017 12:38 am
Maybe you should try reading all the words. He didn't say anything like that. He was just making a general, perfectly true, observation that applies to lot of companies.What is the gain for SpaceX? Starting up a rocket for launch isn't like starting your car in the morning.
The gain is something that can make the difference between a thriving company and bankruptcy. If the backlog is too long, it's going to be harder for new customers to sign up and have cash flow. SpaceX expenses are huge and the are investing in a lot of directions; having fresh money coming in is vital.
What makes you think that SpaceX is anywhere near bankruptcy?
Shotwell said during the press conference before the CRS-10 launch, SpaceX is extremely healthy financially and has no debt. From a financial perspective SpaceX is extremely strong.
It is also important to know when to push a schedule and not push a schedule. Speaking as a Project Manager, after adjusting a schedule for a complicated technical deployment I would not want to bring in a Project end date when I am only a week out from deployment. If you think about it, each F9 launch is basically a very complicated Project and the deployment is launch day. You don't want to make schedule changes this close to the project end unless you have a really good reason.
Considering the implications of another "Anomaly" for SpaceX they did the smart thing by continue to stick with the adjust launch flow timeline.
I know we all want to see SpaceX start rapid launches of "Flight proven" F9's out of LC39A but with launching rockets, a million things have to go right and only one thing has to go wrong for you to have a very bad day.
Post by: manoweb on 03/24/2017 07:17 am
It is also important to know when to push a schedule and not push a schedule. Speaking as a Project Manager, after adjusting a schedule for a complicated technical deployment I would want to bring in a Project end date
But the schedule changes for SES-10 launch have nothing to do, in this case, with any issue to the actual project. It was an external, unrelated, totally decoupled reason (some ULA launch that has nothing to do with SES-10).
SpaceX has already moved a launch to the left in the past. *IF* there is any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date. *IF* they are ready to go and the range is free, why wait?
About the issue that people have their own life etc: launches very often scrub or are delayed for various reasons, weather, small issues, etc. It's part of the job. Why would anticipating a launch be any different? They are probably going to be happy!
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/24/2017 12:01 pm
It is also important to know when to push a schedule and not push a schedule. Speaking as a Project Manager, after adjusting a schedule for a complicated technical deployment I would want to bring in a Project end date
But the schedule changes for SES-10 launch have nothing to do, in this case, with any issue to the actual project. It was an external, unrelated, totally decoupled reason (some ULA launch that has nothing to do with SES-10).
SpaceX has already moved a launch to the left in the past. *IF* there is any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date. *IF* they are ready to go and the range is free, why wait?
About the issue that people have their own life etc: launches very often scrub or are delayed for various reasons, weather, small issues, etc. It's part of the job. Why would anticipating a launch be any different? They are probably going to be happy!
Schedule changes based on Range sharing and Range availability and the other missions on the Eastern Range manifest are 100% "an issue with the actual project." It doesn't matter if SES-10 and OA-7 are by two different companies; they are coupled by the fact that they operate from the exact same Range -- which makes it part of the project.
Space X has moved one launch to the left in the past. And the circumstances for why that launch was able to move to the left are completely different than what we have today. The entire technical operations and procedures in place have evolved since SpaceX last did that. They evolve each time as more information is learned from each launch. Just because they did it once doesn't mean they can automatically do it every single time. And something that is consistently overlooked here is that while SpaceX said that 39A would have been able to support a 3/27 launch of SES-10, neither the requested static fire nor the launch date for that schedule to get to 3/27 was actually approved by the Range. It was always listed as "under review". Now, to the that if there's "any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date," that's not how anything works. That's like saying you shouldn't plan a vacation, book the dates, make hotel reservations, and spend a bunch of money to prepare for it if you're not 100% certain that you're going to get to the airport and the flight will leave. Things happen that delay launches and cause realignments. That doesn't mean you don't anticipate a date, let your workforce know, and issue No Earlier Than dates so schedules can be planned accordingly, so that the incredibly complex tasks of preparing a rocket for flight can all be conducted safely. Also, who said that the Range is now free for the 27th? Just because Atlas V delayed from the 27th doesn't automatically mean that the Range (i.e. all the personnel who are still needed to support a launch) is now free that day. A rocket moving off a specific day does not automatically free up that day for another customer -- especially when that date (as requested by SpaceX) was not formally approved in the first place.
Being scrubbed and delayed (i.e. moving to the right) is a lot different than a launch being accelerated and moved to the left. Delays are known and are planned for. Advancements to the left by 2 to 3 days in this case, when you include the static fire, are massively disruptive to people's schedules and can have a direct negative correlation to work performance.
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2017 12:55 pm
SpaceX has already moved a launch to the left in the past. *IF* there is any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date. *IF* they are ready to go and the range is free, why wait?
Because they planned other work and other assignments to make up for the delay.
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2017 01:02 pm
SpaceX has already moved a launch to the left in the past. *IF* there is any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date. *IF* they are ready to go and the range is free, why wait?
Because they planned other work and other assignments to make up for the delay.
And it is not just Spacex involved. There is the payload customer, the payload contractor, the payload control center, payload tracking sites, there is the range, the FAA, the Coast Guard,
Post by: jpo234 on 03/24/2017 01:03 pm
SpaceX has already moved a launch to the left in the past. *IF* there is any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date. *IF* they are ready to go and the range is free, why wait?
OCISLY has to be in place to catch the booster. It usually leaves about five days in advance.
Post by: John Alan on 03/24/2017 01:40 pm
SpaceX has already moved a launch to the left in the past. *IF* there is any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date. *IF* they are ready to go and the range is free, why wait?
OCISLY has to be in place to catch the booster. It usually leaves about five days in advance.
And a quick check of MarineTraffic.com and "the webcam never named here" shows OCISLY and Elsbeth III resting quietly in port... Launching on the 27th is not happening... Period... ::)
Post by: John Alan on 03/24/2017 01:45 pm
I like how the mission patch has S1 a slight gray color... Signs of prior soot... 8)
on edit... yes it was discussed a few pages back... I know... just my 2 cents...
My attempt is to get this thread off the 27th fixation by some... :P
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/24/2017 02:27 pm
Quote
@elonmusk how excited are you about the SES launch next week?! I don't know how you're focused on model 3 with that ahead! #makinghistory
His response:
Quote
@BlueBowles If fate is on our side, it will be amazing. Will talk about that in detail next week.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845290713776451584
Emphasis mine, and am looking forward to those details!
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/24/2017 02:31 pm
Has this:
Quote
If the launch goes off without a hitch -- and the rocket booster is once again recovered on the drone ship -- SES will get its own piece of space flight history as a memento.
“Gwynne has promised us parts of the rocket,” Halliwell said. “We want them for the SES board room.”
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/24/2017 02:33 pm
Bloomberg article on SES-10 booster re-use: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-24/spacex-launch-of-first-reused-rocket-to-mark-milestone-for-musk (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-24/spacex-launch-of-first-reused-rocket-to-mark-milestone-for-musk)
Has this:QuoteIf the launch goes off without a hitch -- and the rocket booster is once again recovered on the drone ship -- SES will get its own piece of space flight history as a memento.
“Gwynne has promised us parts of the rocket,” Halliwell said. “We want them for the SES board room.”
What Gwynne neglected to point out is there are many ways in which those parts can come to rest on the ASDS. Let's hope they arrive assembled!
Post by: jpo234 on 03/24/2017 02:36 pm
Let's hope they arrive assembled!
So far they always did. Sometimes they underwent a rapid disassembly after touchdown.
Post by: cscott on 03/24/2017 02:39 pm
Post by: gongora on 03/24/2017 02:39 pm
Quote“Gwynne has promised us parts of the rocket,” Halliwell said. “We want them for the SES board room.”
What Gwynne neglected to point out is there are many ways in which those parts can come to rest on the ASDS. Let's hope they arrive assembled!
If first stage comes anywhere near ASDS then it's a pretty good sign for the primary mission.
There was also this reply from Elon:
Quote
@elonmusk since you have time to answer questions, does this mean you're flying to Cape Canaveral?
Reply from Elon (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845294161125269505)
@ToddGerkens Yeah
Post by: mme on 03/24/2017 03:18 pm
I'm wondering if the "fate" comment is in respect to either a fairing recovery attempt (first recovered fairing from first reused booster would be epic), or maybe just a first Roomba outing on the ASDS.I'm wondering the same. The recent comment from one of the software guys about shipping new functionality soon could be related. The Roomba (almost) definitely has a lot of control software. But so would any sort of guidance on the returning fairings.
Post by: Brovane on 03/25/2017 12:55 am
It is also important to know when to push a schedule and not push a schedule. Speaking as a Project Manager, after adjusting a schedule for a complicated technical deployment I would want to bring in a Project end date
But the schedule changes for SES-10 launch have nothing to do, in this case, with any issue to the actual project. It was an external, unrelated, totally decoupled reason (some ULA launch that has nothing to do with SES-10).
SpaceX has already moved a launch to the left in the past. *IF* there is any issue with the booster, they should not anticipate the date. *IF* they are ready to go and the range is free, why wait?
About the issue that people have their own life etc: launches very often scrub or are delayed for various reasons, weather, small issues, etc. It's part of the job. Why would anticipating a launch be any different? They are probably going to be happy!
I will provide a theoretical example from my experience as a Technical Project Manager.
I am scheduling a Core Switch Replacement in a Data-Center. It is fairly complicated involves a lot of different groups Network Team, Storage Team, Server Team(Linux, Windows), Enterprise Application Team, 3rd Party Application Team, and the DBA Team (Both Oracle and SQL). As a PM I start discussing dates for an outage window with the team and we decide March 27th is the best date. As we start putting together the MOP and Enterprise Change Request, we discover that there is backbone maintenance (Unknown to us) on the 27th. This will impact connectivity between the two national data centers. Leadership tells us no go on the 27th, because of the conflict and the backbone maintenance takes priority. So we move the maintenance two days to the right, March 29th and start working towards that date. We put in the ECR's, people that need to buy plane tickets and make hotel reservations start getting everything lined. A couple of days later we discover the backbone maintenance has been canceled, they have to fix a hardware issue on one of the backbone routers before proceeding. At that point as PM, I would be crazy to try and switch back to the 27th unless there was a really good reason. As a PM I wouldn't want to put my team through that unless I had absolutely no choice.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/25/2017 03:21 am
You can't "bin pack" "deallocated time". Try working on an automated reservation system (also contract budding systems) some time to learn the hidden issues with such. It's how you get scheduling errors like double commits.
Read up on Len Kleinrock's linear scheduling papers on reservation commits for the underlying theory.
Post by: manoweb on 03/25/2017 02:50 pm
I will provide a theoretical example from my experience as a Technical Project Manager.
I am scheduling a Core Switch Replacement in a Data-Center. It is fairly complicated involves a lot of different groups Network Team, Storage Team, Server Team(Linux, Windows), Enterprise Application Team, 3rd Party
Do you have few dozens core switch replacements in the backlog? Are core switch replacements a large part of your income or are those just a cost center to support the rest of the organization? Are you in the process to be able to replace such core switches every two to three weeks, maybe reusing old ones...??? In other words, I see very few similarities between your example and the launch of SES-10 and SpaceX's business in general. I am also surprised you described it this way when there are such evident differences - do you not take these into account?
It is now pretty clear the SES-10 launch won't be performed on March 27th 2017, but I would be very surprised to hear that the reason was to not create potential inconvenience to the SpaceX employees and their families.
Post by: cppetrie on 03/25/2017 04:02 pm
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/25/2017 04:14 pm
... but perhaps we could just be excited outsiders and cheer from the sidelines and stands...
That vast majority of evidence says no.
It's much more like the Tour de France where the spectators sometimes jump into the street and try to run with the bikes.
Post by: John Alan on 03/25/2017 04:39 pm
"Webcam Never Named Here"... shows barge is missing... :o
MarineTraffic.com shows Elsbeth III headed 117 at 3.7 knots... about 5 miles out right now... ???
Looks like it's right on schedule... 8)
Post by: manoweb on 03/25/2017 05:54 pm
The amount of backseat driving and second guessing is stunning. Can we all agree that SpaceX has some of the best in the rocket business running and coordinating their launch attempts?
Oh I thought this was the "Discussion" thread about SES-10. I thought we were "discussing" the launch date and the possible reasons why this specific launch would be moved left or right. Nobody from either side said what SpaceX should do, we are trying to reason as to *why* they do that. I may disagree with user "Brovane" but I have still learned several things in this discussion. Now, each forum or website has a different take on the amount of meta-talk, maybe an authoritative forum administrator can clarify if this discussion was deemed inappropriate.
You said it. Makes for a lot to sift through in order to find good information.
What about the Updates thread?
Some sources, like SES S.A. themselves, said just recently that if the flight and landing are both successful, they will get some parts of the rocket from SpaceX. I was very surprised by this, meaning that apparently they have decided, even if the landing is again successful, they will not attempt to re-use this stage thrice.
Post by: envy887 on 03/25/2017 06:02 pm
Some sources, like SES S.A. themselves, said just recently that if the flight and landing are both successful, they will get some parts of the rocket from SpaceX. I was very surprised by this, meaning that apparently they have decided, even if the landing is again successful, they will not attempt to re-use this stage thrice.
Or they want some parts that have to be replaced anyway before reflight... a couple grid fins, maybe?
Post by: gongora on 03/25/2017 06:04 pm
Some sources, like SES S.A. themselves, said just recently that if the flight and landing are both successful, they will get some parts of the rocket from SpaceX. I was very surprised by this, meaning that apparently they have decided, even if the landing is again successful, they will not attempt to re-use this stage thrice.
There's really no need to reuse them a third time yet. They should recover more Block 3/4 cores this year than they could possibly use before Block 5 is flying. Once Block 5 is flying you'd think they'll want to standardize on that fairly quickly. Flying a Block 3 stage for a third time right now would just be to demonstrate they can do it, it wouldn't really save any time or money.
Post by: gongora on 03/25/2017 10:07 pm
Quote
SAT-MPL-20170108-00002 E S2950
Grant of Authority Effective Date: 03/10/2017
Modification to PDR/PPL
New Skies Satellites B.V.
Nature of Service: Direct to Home Fixed Satellite, Fixed Satellite Service
On March 22, 2017, the Satellite Division reissued the license conditions for the SES-10 space station to specify operations of SES-10 at the
66.9° W.L. orbital location instead of 67° W.L. This relocation was made pursuant to Section 25.117(h)(1) of the Commission's rules and
became effective on March 10, 2017, without further authorization by the Commission.
Post by: jacqmans on 03/26/2017 08:11 am
Post by: Lar on 03/26/2017 10:16 am
https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/843945243502362624
We've got the patch!
<patch image in original post>
We appear to have two patches, what's the story? Which one was issued by whom? Thanks!
Post by: Lar on 03/26/2017 10:33 am
The amount of backseat driving and second guessing is stunning. Can we all agree that SpaceX has some of the best in the rocket business running and coordinating their launch attempts?
Oh I thought this was the "Discussion" thread about SES-10. I thought we were "discussing" the launch date and the possible reasons why this specific launch would be moved left or right. Nobody from either side said what SpaceX should do, we are trying to reason as to *why* they do that. I may disagree with user "Brovane" but I have still learned several things in this discussion. Now, each forum or website has a different take on the amount of meta-talk, maybe an authoritative forum administrator can clarify if this discussion was deemed inappropriate.
OK. You wanted an opinion? From a mod? Here you go:
As a reader, I was intrigued by the discussion at first, and I learned a bit more about scheduling than I already know. But then it started to get into beating a dead horse territory and second guessing territory, and I got bored. I've been a PM myself (what a thankless job!!) and I thought Brovane's example was SPOT ON. It fit this perfectly. I would, as a PM, NEVER pull a date 2 days forward at the last minute for little or no apparent benefit and a lot of risk. And, as a reader, I read stuff that looked like second guessing[1]. I find second guessing tiresome in general, and (as a huge SpaceX fan) second guessing SpaceX, who are super innovative and fast moving, REALLY annoying.
As a mod I was tempted to start deleting some posts that were starting to get annoyingly repetitive. This is a discussion thread, not a beat a dead horse thread. For ME to be tempted to delete stuff? You know I'm a big softie... that should tell you something.
Normally I don't like to talk about mod decision making. It's best that we just act and if we need to talk behind the scenes, we do. But you asked and maybe you and others will take this on board and stop second guessing a bit. Asking questions to seek to understand is great. Even if you ask followups, that's good too. But reasking and not accepting explanations? Not helpful. We expect better of our readers and contributors here.
Finally, be careful what you ask for. Now I'm itching to delete so the next comment that looks deadhorseish[2] or secondguessish[2] might just get aetherised[2][3].
I think it was very clearly explained why this had been thoroughly discussed and needed to be dropped already. Here you go again with another explanation, as requested.
1 - I do a lot of tech writing too. We have a saying .... "communication wasn't did" ... when something isn't understood by one or two folks, it's the reader. But if it's not understood by many readers, it's not the fault of the readers, but of the writer... you may say you weren't second guessing SpaceX, but your words read like you were. To many folks. When called on it, back up and think before you speak again. We want everyone's contributions but we also want NSF to be the highest quality forum out there in this field. Our readers and contributors make it so. Hold up your end, please.
2 - I'm an IBMer. We make up words all the time. We can noun any verb and verb any noun. Deal.
3 - "consigned to the howling ether", i.e. deleted.
Post by: Lar on 03/26/2017 10:39 am
Some sources, like SES S.A. themselves, said just recently that if the flight and landing are both successful, they will get some parts of the rocket from SpaceX. I was very surprised by this, meaning that apparently they have decided, even if the landing is again successful, they will not attempt to re-use this stage thrice.
There's really no need to reuse them a third time yet. They should recover more Block 3/4 cores this year than they could possibly use before Block 5 is flying. Once Block 5 is flying you'd think they'll want to standardize on that fairly quickly. Flying a Block 3 stage for a third time right now would just be to demonstrate they can do it, it wouldn't really save any time or money.
In general I agree. This might be the only Block 3 that gets reused twice. (or 3 times!!! Or more!!!! ) But proving that they can do it ASAP is good for them. AND, if they recycle it faster than last time, even better. So for this specific core, I say reuse it as many times as they can, until the TEL changes so much it can't be done any more...
Post by: cscott on 03/26/2017 12:18 pm
Usually there's a "booster" patch and a "payload" patch, although I have no specific information in this case.https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/843945243502362624
We've got the patch!<patch image in original post>
We appear to have two patches, what's the story? Which one was issued by whom? Thanks!
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/26/2017 12:50 pm
https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/843945243502362624
We've got the patch!<patch image in original post>
We appear to have two patches, what's the story? Which one was issued by whom? Thanks!
The second patch is a fan creation by u/Qeng-Ho on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/5qafvi/flight_proven_patch/?st=J0QOME5W&sh=b5db4d2a), but is being posted all over the place without credit.
And the full animation (https://gfycat.com/JitteryGraveIndochinesetiger) is what makes it great anyways.
Post by: shuttlefan on 03/26/2017 02:55 pm
Clear pad as of an hour ago. Also SFN stream showing no booster vertical.
Cutting it close for Static Fire.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSGhmh2lRM8/
The have an 8-hour window today. :)
Post by: cebri on 03/26/2017 03:48 pm
Post by: mlow on 03/26/2017 03:53 pm
Post by: cebri on 03/26/2017 03:54 pm
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
Thanks¡
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/26/2017 03:58 pm
Clear pad as of an hour ago. Also SFN stream showing no booster vertical.
Cutting it close for Static Fire.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSGhmh2lRM8/
The have an 8-hour window today. :)
Which is now Monday, so everyone is on the same page ;)
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/26/2017 04:00 pm
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
Thanks¡
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.0
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/26/2017 04:03 pm
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
Thanks¡
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.0
Those are flight numbers, not the same thing. They change with every (re)launch.
Here (https://reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores) is a list of SpaceX flight (F9-XX) and booster (B1XXX) numbers for all publicly known stages.
Post by: Lar on 03/26/2017 10:02 pm
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
Thanks¡
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.0
Those are flight numbers, not the same thing. They change with every (re)launch.
Here (https://reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores) is a list of SpaceX flight (F9-XX) and booster (B1XXX) numbers for all publicly known stages.
How much confidence do we have, collectively, in that data? It's organised nicely (if a bit sprawlingly) though. You do good work, sir.
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/26/2017 10:06 pm
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
Thanks¡
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.0
Those are flight numbers, not the same thing. They change with every (re)launch.
Here (https://reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores) is a list of SpaceX flight (F9-XX) and booster (B1XXX) numbers for all publicly known stages.
How much confidence do we have, collectively, in that data? It's organised nicely (if a bit sprawlingly) though.
It's all public information, unless it has a qualifier (i.e. Presumed B1035).
Post by: Lar on 03/26/2017 10:15 pm
Post by: CameronD on 03/27/2017 01:42 am
http://www.afr.com/leadership/innovation/elon-musks-spacex-is-about-to-reuse-falcon-9-rocket-in-wright-brothers-moment-20170326-gv71em
Nothing particularly new, other than finishing with this quote stating that if all goes well, #1021 will never fly again:
Quote
Gwynne has promised us parts of the rocket," Halliwell said. "We want them for the SES board room."
Post by: FlokiViking on 03/27/2017 03:05 am
Quote
other than finishing with this quote stating that if all goes well, #1021 will never fly again
Is that really what the quote says?
If the SES boardroom gets a grid fin and a leg, does that mean #1021 will (or could) never fly again? ??? ;)
Post by: zodiacchris on 03/27/2017 03:32 am
Post by: SweetWater on 03/27/2017 04:00 am
Interesting article in the Financial Review today:
http://www.afr.com/leadership/innovation/elon-musks-spacex-is-about-to-reuse-falcon-9-rocket-in-wright-brothers-moment-20170326-gv71em
Nothing particularly new, other than finishing with this quote stating that if all goes well, #1021 will never fly again:QuoteGwynne has promised us parts of the rocket," Halliwell said. "We want them for the SES board room."
I hate to be Debbie Downer (that's a lie, but I digress...), but this seems like bad karma. Counting chickens before they're hatched. Let's have a successful launch and satellite deployment, a successful landing, and get the stage back to port in one piece. THEN it's safe to talk about what parts can go in the board room.
Post by: K210 on 03/27/2017 04:45 am
Post by: Lars-J on 03/27/2017 05:31 am
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
Are you concerned about a lack of health skepticism before every launch? If not, why single this one out?
Post by: CameronD on 03/27/2017 05:37 am
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
Are you concerned about a lack of health skepticism before every launch? If not, why single this one out?
Healthy scepticism didn't get men to the moon... and from telecasts we've seen of previous launches it's banned from SpaceX Mission Control also.
Post by: faramund on 03/27/2017 06:47 am
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 03/27/2017 07:04 am
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
What is there to be sceptical about? This first stage is not being reflown? SpaceX and SES are lying?
Or do you mean concern? By whom? I'm sure SpaceX, range, FAA and SES are concerned about this launch, same as about any other. Or do you mean lack of concern by us in a forum? Why is that worrying? Can our concern or lack of it change anything?
My default assumption is that after the first few launches there is a 1 in 100 chance of failure for any modern vehicle. Flight rate is not high enough for any particular launcher to say differently from a statistical point of view. Ariane 5, Atlas V, Falcon 9 all 1 in 100, I don't see any reason for this first stage reflight to be any different.
Post by: MP99 on 03/27/2017 07:52 am
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
What is there to be sceptical about? This first stage is not being reflown? SpaceX and SES are lying?
I have seen concerns that heating during reentry has the possibility of weakening the aluminium structure of the tanks. Presumably SpaceX will have eliminated this and similar concerns during NDT.
Also, reuse puts extra cycles on subsystems which are subject to a lot of stress and lifetime concerns. I'm mainly thinking of the helium system here - not sure if there are others.
This is not to say I think this flight will fail, but I will be holding my breath more than normal until MECO and separation.
Cheers, Martin
Post by: friendly3 on 03/27/2017 08:46 am
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
They put a four-leaf clover on each of their patches if that can reassure you, it must be some sort of "healthy scepticism" turned into healthier enthusiasm or even healthier boldness.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/27/2017 10:44 am
Quote from: nifty1a
Launch postponed until 30th March... as static firing due today has been postponed until tomorrow
where tomorrow is 03/28.
Source of the information (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5sjrzj/ses10_launch_campaign_thread/dfgnmso/):
Quote from: nifty1a
I know I'm new on here.... but I work for Airbus DS, and have friends on the satellite launch/LEOP teams.
Edit: I first posted this in the UPDATES thread, but because this is not an official source, the discussion thread seemed to be more appropriate
Post by: Flying Beaver on 03/27/2017 11:27 am
Reddit user /u/nifty1a with a good track record writes (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5sjrzj/ses10_launch_campaign_thread/dfglum7/):Quote from: nifty1aLaunch postponed until 30th March... as static firing due today has been postponed until tomorrow
where tomorrow is 03/28.
Source of the information (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5sjrzj/ses10_launch_campaign_thread/dfgnmso/):Quote from: nifty1aI know I'm new on here.... but I work for Airbus DS, and have friends on the satellite launch/LEOP teams.
Edit: I first posted this in the UPDATES thread, but because this is not an official source, the discussion thread seemed to be more appropriate
Thing is the launch date probably won't be decided untill after the static fire. A 2.5 day turn around sounds like the minimum time required for payload/fairing mounting. If they think they can do it, they'll do it. Especially if the static fire is at the opening of the window.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/27/2017 11:54 am
Likely how this will pan out as they were very tight on the margin in the first place. I just need to see the date updated on actual a schedule, etc....per how I report these things.
PS Thursday is also EVA-41. :o
Post by: Orbiter on 03/27/2017 11:55 am
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/27/2017 01:07 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 01:07 pm
Good morning, B-1021! Nice to see you again.
We're now 52mins to the opening of the static fire window for today.
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/27/2017 01:32 pm
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
What is there to be sceptical about? This first stage is not being reflown? SpaceX and SES are lying?
I have seen concerns that heating during reentry has the possibility of weakening the aluminium structure of the tanks. Presumably SpaceX will have eliminated this and similar concerns during NDT.
Also, reuse puts extra cycles on subsystems which are subject to a lot of stress and lifetime concerns. I'm mainly thinking of the helium system here - not sure if there are others.
This is not to say I think this flight will fail, but I will be holding my breath more than normal until MECO and separation.
Cheers, Martin
Absolutely. First stage reuse has been an accepted part of the future of spaceflight for enough years now that I think some people are forgetting that it has yet to be proven possible. If this launch fails for reasons that are linked to stage life, it could deal a massive blow to the concept of reuse. There is a heck of a lot riding on this one.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/27/2017 01:35 pm
A lot of magical thinking about the idea of reusing stages, here.
Post by: Brian45 on 03/27/2017 01:40 pm
Post by: mikelepage on 03/27/2017 01:41 pm
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
What is there to be sceptical about? This first stage is not being reflown? SpaceX and SES are lying?
I have seen concerns that heating during reentry has the possibility of weakening the aluminium structure of the tanks. Presumably SpaceX will have eliminated this and similar concerns during NDT.
Also, reuse puts extra cycles on subsystems which are subject to a lot of stress and lifetime concerns. I'm mainly thinking of the helium system here - not sure if there are others.
This is not to say I think this flight will fail, but I will be holding my breath more than normal until MECO and separation.
Cheers, Martin
Exactly. The following is probably a contradiction in terms, but I can't think of a better way to say it:
It seems to me that there are new unknown unknowns with this launch.
We're changing a key variable, so there's the potential for previously unknowable, synergistic (?) effects to wreak havoc with the launch. Just one of those things that we won't know until we try. Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 01:57 pm
I guess we can class this as "documentation" ;D
45th Space Wing updated their header (but forgot to tweet) Falcon 9 SES-10 launch now NET 30th.
From the update thread. So 45th now says 30th at 1800L window open. That's a large window open shift. 3/27 was window open at 1659L, as was 3/29. So why an hour shift for a suspected slip to 3/30?
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 02:13 pm
Isn't just case of 6:00 pm ET = 5:00 pm EDT?
No. In US, ET is shorthand for EDT and EST; it's not a specific GMT offset indicator. And the US switched to DST weeks ago, so it's not that, either. But I've seen 1800L now several places. So I guess something really changes the window dynamics for 3/30. Still intriguing.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/27/2017 02:41 pm
Although it should be pointed out that SpaceX has retired risk as much as possible - recall that they did five or more full duration static fires of their "life leader" returned booster. This means five or more tanking and "detanking" events, five or more pressurizing subsystem full duration tests, five or more engine ignitions and full thrust engine runs. All, I believe, without any work on the stage.The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
What is there to be sceptical about? This first stage is not being reflown? SpaceX and SES are lying?
I have seen concerns that heating during reentry has the possibility of weakening the aluminium structure of the tanks. Presumably SpaceX will have eliminated this and similar concerns during NDT.
Also, reuse puts extra cycles on subsystems which are subject to a lot of stress and lifetime concerns. I'm mainly thinking of the helium system here - not sure if there are others.
This is not to say I think this flight will fail, but I will be holding my breath more than normal until MECO and separation.
Cheers, Martin
Exactly. The following is probably a contradiction in terms, but I can't think of a better way to say it:
It seems to me that there are new unknown unknowns with this launch.
We're changing a key variable, so there's the potential for previously unknowable, synergistic (?) effects to wreak havoc with the launch. Just one of those things that we won't know until we try. Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.
I'd say they have fairly good faith in the SES-10 booster based on the experiential evidence.
Won't have long to wait to find out now. And yes, I personally am going to be at the edge of my seat...
Post by: Jason Davies on 03/27/2017 02:47 pm
Post by: mme on 03/27/2017 03:04 pm
... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. :)
I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/27/2017 03:40 pm
In reading about re-use of a first stage, all I've seen are concerns about the engines, pumps, tanks, etc. ie the "guts" of the rocket. Was there any discussion about the actual structure of the metal tube that holds everything together?
Yes. But quick, let SpaceX know, just in case they forgot about it. ;)
EDIT: (to de-snark a bit) I can't point to specific threads where it has been discussed, but the topic has been talked about. But we simply don't know all the data that SpaceX has to discuss specifics. What we DO KNOW, however, is that landed stages have been extensively tested at McGregor with many cryo propellant load cycles and stage firings. SpaceX appears to be confident in the structure.
See video of such a test here. (note the load testing device on top of the booster)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZQY902xQcw
Post by: clegg78 on 03/27/2017 03:49 pm
In reading about re-use of a first stage, all I've seen are concerns about the engines, pumps, tanks, etc. ie the "guts" of the rocket. Was there any discussion about the actual structure of the metal tube that holds everything together?
Yes. But quick, let SpaceX know, just in case they forgot about it. ;)
I agree with the (snarky ) Post by Lars-J - One of the things I find interesting and frustrating about this forum, is how often people think there seem to be no one at SpaceX tasked with simple things like "Can the tanks be reused??" I get it, they are moving fast but at the same time, there is a lot of money riding on these and they cant accept setbacks right now (even a reused booster going pop is going to cause a hold on future launches as another investigation would need to happen)
Post by: mn on 03/27/2017 04:03 pm
But 10 pages of discussion on NSF with lots of technical explanations of what might theoretically happen to the tank and why it will or won't matter would make for interesting reading. I would definitely learn a thing or two. (but obviously not relevant to this specific launch, and it may have already been discussed at length somewhere that I missed).
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/27/2017 04:07 pm
... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. :)
I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
The impact on SES of a failure would be less than the impact on SpaceX.
SES has their satellite insured, and it wouldn't harm their reputation in any way to lose one bird. Nobody would blame them. They'd blame SpaceX. It's SpaceX that risks losing customers, and risks Congress cutting their commercial crew funding if they have a failure of the same launch vehicle that will launch astronauts.
Post by: Scylla on 03/27/2017 04:08 pm
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 03/27/2017 04:11 pm
... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. :)
I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
Do we know this for a fact ??....the payload must be insured...somewhere along SES found an insurance company to provide a policy for their payload on this special flight ..that policy is paid for with a insurance premium...if I was SES and agreed to be SpaceX first resusable stage one customer, I'd get SpaceX to not only pay the insurance premium but also offer a free ride on a future launch if things go badly....basically, if I was SES and this launch fails as a result of a stage one problem related to reuse, this mission doesn't cost me a dime...if I was SES...
Post by: S.Paulissen on 03/27/2017 04:17 pm
Post by: cscott on 03/27/2017 04:28 pm
Nobody thinks SpaceX forgot about the tanks.
But 10 pages of discussion on NSF with lots of technical explanations of what might theoretically happen to the tank and why it will or won't matter would make for interesting reading.
You might be interested, but it would definitely be too much concern trolling for my taste. If we could have the discussion in terms of "these are the things SpaceX undoubtedly did to validate the tanks" it might be unobjectionable, but these sorts of discussions instead tend to bring out the worst armchair engineering and second-guessing.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/27/2017 04:33 pm
... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. :)
I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
Do we know this for a fact ??....the payload must be insured...somewhere along SES found an insurance company to provide a policy for their payload on this special flight ..that policy is paid for with a insurance premium...if I was SES and agreed to be SpaceX first resusable stage one customer, I'd get SpaceX to not only pay the insurance premium but also offer a free ride on a future launch if things go badly....basically, if I was SES and this launch fails as a result of a stage one problem related to reuse, this mission doesn't cost me a dime...if I was SES...
I agree with you that SES insures the payload.
But that doesn't mean they don't have any downside to a failure. They still have an opportunity cost when they can't make money from their new satellite, and insurance is likely to cover only the cost of the satellite, not all lost profit they could earn from it.
And the idea that they make SpaceX pay for the insurance really misses the point. What matters for SES is the total cost -- what they pay SpaceX plus what they pay for insurance.
For example, whether SES pays SpaceX $60 million and SpaceX pays the insurance company $10 million of that or SES pays the insurance but pays SpaceX $50 million makes no difference at all to SpaceX or SES.
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/27/2017 04:35 pm
I think SpaceX have done due diligence on the recovered boosters. I am not suggesting that somehow I know better, or that I think they have forgotten about something, or that the multiple hot fires and tanking cycles aren't relevant.
It is simply stating a fact that putting a stage of this size and type through a second flight has never been demonstrated yet. And there may be unknown unknowns waiting to rear their ugly heads. It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Post by: envy887 on 03/27/2017 04:36 pm
Depending on what ancillaries the insurance policy covers, a failure might not cost SES anything at all.
Post by: Lar on 03/27/2017 04:39 pm
QuoteJames Dean Verified account @flatoday_jdean 3m3 minutes ago
Weather 70% "go" for SpaceX's new target launch time of 6pm ET Thurs., March 30, for SES-10 on flight proven F9. Window to 8:30pm.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/846360980904923136 (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/846360980904923136)
I just like that not only SpaceX uses "flight proven" :)
Post by: Req on 03/27/2017 04:45 pm
I'm not sure why those of us who seem more concerned about this launch than others are being labelled as trolls.
I think SpaceX have done due diligence on the recovered boosters. I am not suggesting that somehow I know better, or that I think they have forgotten about something, or that the multiple hot fires and tanking cycles aren't relevant.
It is simply stating a fact that putting a stage of this size and type through a second flight has never been demonstrated yet. And there may be unknown unknowns waiting to rear their ugly heads. It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Who exactly does this need to be pointed out to? Are you making the post because you think you need to inform the public? And nobody has called you a troll(yet - keep posting), you've just generated a straw-man "we" for some reason, when the term has only been thrown around in reply to specific things that others have said.
Anyway... Back to the topic of "SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster" - the bolded part implies what you're saying.
Post by: Brian45 on 03/27/2017 04:47 pm
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
Post by: Req on 03/27/2017 04:52 pm
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
They are using the Thaicom-8 core as a booster for the first Falcon Heavy launch. This core consumed most or all of a leg's crush core during a barge landing which caused it to lean, then it walked around on the deck due to wave action for something like a week, encountering the rail several times rather than falling overboard. Can we please put this to rest?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/27/2017 04:56 pm
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
Why do you assume they need to do something to stress the structure of the stage?
If Boeing builds a new aircraft and they fly it once, they don't then put the fuselage in a test stand and do structural tests on it before flying it a second time.
There's nothing magical about a second flight of a structure that makes it particularly likely to fail.
Post by: Steve D on 03/27/2017 05:02 pm
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
Those guys are way too busy to be reading every post in this forum. Not putting down this forum, but people have time to work or they have time to play around on the forum. Not both.
Post by: Negan on 03/27/2017 05:05 pm
It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Seems like you just argued how much more assurance a flight proven booster provides.
Edit: As in a part failed on its first use.
Post by: Jim on 03/27/2017 05:12 pm
It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Seems like you just argued how much more assurance a flight proven booster provides.
Not really, it was a second stage problem. Second stages are not reused, have only one engine and operate 70% of the time to orbit.
Post by: Brian45 on 03/27/2017 05:32 pm
I suspect that when Boeing first flys a new model of an airplane, they do take that plane into the "shop" and look at it under a close microscope to find any stress issues. After a number of flights and examinations they gain confidence that they know where to look for problems. After that process, they move on to production. Seeing as how this is the first re-launch of a booster for SpaceX, the first one to be subjected to the stress of a launch after being launched and landed, two very stressful events, it only makes sense that this would be an issue the engineers there would look at.
Again, I'm sure SpaceX considered my concern (not because it was mine or was expressed in this forum). Is there anywhere at this website that has discussions about this issue? I've looked through the "Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles" section and don't seem to find any information on this.
Post by: feynmanrules on 03/27/2017 05:59 pm
The rocket will succeed or not. Both companies know the risks and whatever happens they'll learn.
Life and life and launches will go on. :)
That said I'm curious about new mexico spaceport being dropped from plans. A couple of years ago musk suggested they'd likely fly recovered boosters from SPA first prior to customer relaunch. Obviously they're more confident this step is not absolutely necessary...
Since SpX grasshopper testing never moved to SPA even though they're still paying a lease... Wasn't sure if virgin's incident and delays made SPX rethink investing in SPA vs Boca (where they have more control) or 39a (more established space ecosystem). Absent SPA they could've done a customer-less flight elsewhere if needed.... that they're not and that SES is risking some serious bank here.... they likely have convincing data showing this is the best path for all involved.
We'll know in a couple of days... whatever happens will be loud and exciting! ;)
Post by: Lars-J on 03/27/2017 06:00 pm
Again, I'm sure SpaceX considered my concern (not because it was mine or was expressed in this forum). Is there anywhere at this website that has discussions about this issue? I've looked through the "Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles" section and don't seem to find any information on this.
Then I suggest you go ahead and start a thread, the "SpaceX Reusable Rockets Section" seems like an appropriate area for it. (You seem have a lot that you want to discuss about this, perhaps your can get a discussion going)
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 06:02 pm
Post by: Brian45 on 03/27/2017 06:04 pm
Good idea - I'll try to start a new thread over at the refurbishment section. Thanks
Post by: hans_ober on 03/27/2017 06:06 pm
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
Post by: mme on 03/27/2017 06:14 pm
But claiming "no biggie, it's insured" for the customer does not recognize that satellites take years to build and companies like SES, Iridium, Orbcomm, and dare I mention Spacecom make their livelihood by those satellites being operational in orbit.
My house is insured but if it burns down it's still going to suck. If I ever meet the CTO of SES, I'm buying the man a drink for supporting SpaceX and reusable rockets. Even though I am sure he got a sweet deal for this flight.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/27/2017 06:17 pm
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/27/2017 06:19 pm
Any reason for the longer burn? Special request by SES?
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
I think I remember someone saying the 5 sec burn allows them to get a better checkout of the turbopumps.
Post by: Lar on 03/27/2017 06:33 pm
Any reason for the longer burn? Special request by SES?
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
I think I remember someone saying the 5 sec burn allows them to get a better checkout of the turbopumps.
Which does kind of revalidate the question... why not do this for all? I honestly have no idea. Might be off topic for a mission specific thread. Maybe we need a "how long to static fire" thread! :) Or a poll. (KIDDING)
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 06:46 pm
Any reason for the longer burn? Special request by SES?
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
I think I remember someone saying the 5 sec burn allows them to get a better checkout of the turbopumps.
Which does kind of revalidate the question... why not do this for all? I honestly have no idea. Might be off topic for a mission specific thread. Maybe we need a "how long to static fire" thread! :) Or a poll. (KIDDING)
As they've only done (to my memory) the prolonged static fire for the two SES missions to date, I'd place good money on it being a customer request.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/27/2017 06:48 pm
Any reason for the longer burn? Special request by SES?
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
I think I remember someone saying the 5 sec burn allows them to get a better checkout of the turbopumps.
Which does kind of revalidate the question... why not do this for all? I honestly have no idea. Might be off topic for a mission specific thread. Maybe we need a "how long to static fire" thread! :) Or a poll. (KIDDING)
As they've only done (to my memory) the prolonged static fire for the two SES missions to date, I'd place good money on it being a customer request.
So whats the TEL umbilical damage like for A static fire? Does the longer burn do more damage?
Post by: kevinof on 03/27/2017 06:53 pm
Any reason for the longer burn? Special request by SES?
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
I think I remember someone saying the 5 sec burn allows them to get a better checkout of the turbopumps.
Which does kind of revalidate the question... why not do this for all? I honestly have no idea. Might be off topic for a mission specific thread. Maybe we need a "how long to static fire" thread! :) Or a poll. (KIDDING)
As they've only done (to my memory) the prolonged static fire for the two SES missions to date, I'd place good money on it being a customer request.
So whats the TEL umbilical damage like for A static fire? Does the longer burn do more damage?
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 06:55 pm
I assume none as it never contacts the exhaust. It's only (?) as the stage climbs off the pad that the heat and exhaust impacts the tel and causes damage.Any reason for the longer burn? Special request by SES?
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
I think I remember someone saying the 5 sec burn allows them to get a better checkout of the turbopumps.
Which does kind of revalidate the question... why not do this for all? I honestly have no idea. Might be off topic for a mission specific thread. Maybe we need a "how long to static fire" thread! :) Or a poll. (KIDDING)
As they've only done (to my memory) the prolonged static fire for the two SES missions to date, I'd place good money on it being a customer request.
So whats the TEL umbilical damage like for A static fire? Does the longer burn do more damage?
Correct. No TEL umbilical damage from a nominal static fire.
Post by: ugordan on 03/27/2017 06:56 pm
As they've only done (to my memory) the prolonged static fire for the two SES missions to date, I'd place good money on it being a customer request.
+ Jason-3
Post by: THeel01 on 03/27/2017 07:28 pm
By my count, the current record for pad turnaround for launches on either LC39A/B is 17 days (STS- 51-D to STS-51-B, launched from LC39A).
Not to start Go-fever or anything, but if SpaceX launches on Mar 30, thats 14 day turnaround.
Sound correct?
Post by: Mike_1179 on 03/27/2017 07:43 pm
As they've only done (to my memory) the prolonged static fire for the two SES missions to date, I'd place good money on it being a customer request.
If this static fire is meant to mimic the ignition and hold down of a real launch, does that mean they intend to hold the vehicle down for 5 seconds after ignition on the 30th as well?
The downside is 2 seconds less prop at the end of a first stage burn but my guess is it lets them characterize the engine performance prior to hold-down release better once you get further away from start-up transients and they operate at steady state. Might be that's why this is a "customer request" because the customer is getting 2 seconds less margin (about 500 kg of fuel, right?)
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 08:01 pm
As they've only done (to my memory) the prolonged static fire for the two SES missions to date, I'd place good money on it being a customer request.
If this static fire is meant to mimic the ignition and hold down of a real launch, does that mean they intend to hold the vehicle down for 5 seconds after ignition on the 30th as well?
The downside is 2 seconds less prop at the end of a first stage burn but my guess is it lets them characterize the engine performance prior to hold-down release better once you get further away from start-up transients and they operate at steady state. Might be that's why this is a "customer request" because the customer is getting 2 seconds less margin (about 500 kg of fuel, right?)
No. Sequence on launch day will result in nominal release time at T0.
Post by: Orbiter on 03/27/2017 08:11 pm
Can someone double check my math?
By my count, the current record for pad turnaround for launches on either LC39A/B is 17 days (STS- 51-D to STS-51-B, launched from LC39A).
Not to start Go-fever or anything, but if SpaceX launches on Mar 30, thats 14 day turnaround.
Sound correct?
Yes, assuming the schedule holds, the turnaround between Echostar-23 and SES-10 will be the fastest ever from LC-39A. However, the Shuttle was a far different beast.
Post by: ATPTourFan on 03/27/2017 08:54 pm
No. Sequence on launch day will result in nominal release time at T0.
I would agree, clamps release at T-0, but would ignition sequence start earlier?
It's a good question because I thought the "only" thing different between static hold-down fire pre-launch was that they didn't let go (I know that's oversimplified). Or is the static fire a modified sequence that only mimics the pad operations and fuel loading profile for the launch through to engine ignition, and not necessarily a mirror of the last 5 seconds prior to T-0?
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/27/2017 09:15 pm
No. Sequence on launch day will result in nominal release time at T0.
I would agree, clamps release at T-0, but would ignition sequence start earlier?
It's a good question because I thought the "only" thing different between static hold-down fire pre-launch was that they didn't let go (I know that's oversimplified). Or is the static fire a modified sequence that only mimics the pad operations and fuel loading profile for the launch through to engine ignition, and not necessarily a mirror of the last 5 seconds prior to T-0?
No. The countdown sequence will be nominal. No extra time or early ignition, etc.. The static fire duration does not translate to changes to launch countdown.
Static fire is a mirror of everything down to T0. If it helps, a good way to think of today is that they proceeded past T0 to T+2secs, but didn't release the clamps. That's a better way to view this than a change to countdown/launch day/release timing.
Post by: mn on 03/27/2017 09:30 pm
Is this time consistent or has anyone noticed that number moving around on various launches?
Post by: ugordan on 03/27/2017 09:34 pm
Post by: ChrisC on 03/27/2017 10:45 pm
How many seconds between ignition and T0?
See background here: https://www.google.com/search?q=Falcon+9+ignition+sequence
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 03/27/2017 11:19 pm
How many seconds between ignition and T0?
See background here: https://www.google.com/search?q=Falcon+9+ignition+sequence
That is a useless link. None of the first page results provide any meaningful insight into the Merlin startup sequence.
Post by: DatUser14 on 03/27/2017 11:32 pm
How many seconds between ignition and T0?Looked at the last couple press kits, it's been T-3 Merlin-1D ignition T-0 liftoff.
Is this time consistent or has anyone noticed that number moving around on various launches?
Post by: Jcc on 03/27/2017 11:43 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 03/28/2017 12:43 am
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?
I believe the base (around the octaweb and legs) and the interstage are the only areas covered by "traditional" spam. The rest is metal covered by thinner paint coatings that are easier to wash. But I could be mistaken.
Post by: CameronD on 03/28/2017 01:16 am
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?
I believe the base (around the octaweb and legs) and the interstage are the only areas covered by "traditional" spam. The rest is metal covered by thinner paint coatings that are easier to wash. But I could be mistaken.
If they keep up this re-launch thing they might have to try anodising.. :D
Post by: envy887 on 03/28/2017 01:38 am
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?
The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.
Post by: Comga on 03/28/2017 03:37 am
Has anybody considered the PR that companies like SES get for being the first to launch on a new SpaceX configuration. I know that personally I know a lot more about SES now then before their flights. I think Iridium got a boost from the PR too.If we said "no" to your question, would you believe us?
Have you read this thread and the parallel L2 thread?
It's really hard to come up with new considerations here as we approach 500 posts in this thread alone. That's not one.
Feel free to debate whether SES would consider PR a reason to assume significantly greater risk to their satellite.
Feel free to debate whether PR is financially significant to SES.
Would you be more likely to sign a contract with them, vs their competition, because they are "first to launch on a new SpaceX configuration"?
On what do you base your conclusion the "Iridium got a boost"?
Unless that's a pun....
Post by: CameronD on 03/28/2017 04:11 am
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?
The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.
The "scars of battle" I suppose. Presumably someone in SpaceX decided that a grubby-looking stage would/should perform no differently to a freshly-painted one whilst saving a few $k in paint and labour.
Perhaps the grubby-ness is part of their testing regime? You know, to see if it gets more grubby??
Post by: Semmel on 03/28/2017 05:58 am
How many seconds between ignition and T0?Looked at the last couple press kits, it's been T-3 Merlin-1D ignition T-0 liftoff.
Is this time consistent or has anyone noticed that number moving around on various launches?
Pinning down the ignition to 0.1 sec. or something is probably a futile attempt. So many things happen in short succession that you can't really say that one of the events is the ignition time. 2 to 3 sec before liftoff might be as good as it gets.
Post by: CraigLieb on 03/28/2017 12:39 pm
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?
The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.
The "scars of battle" I suppose. Presumably someone in SpaceX decided that a grubby-looking stage would/should perform no differently to a freshly-painted one whilst saving a few $k in paint and labour.
Perhaps the grubby-ness is part of their testing regime? You know, to see if it gets more grubby??
One reason to not re-paint is that fresh paint adds weight. Extra pounds on the first stage reduces stack overall performance to orbit. If the existing paint is still doing its proper job, leave it alone. Wash it, check it, paint over patches where it is damaged if necessary and go back to work. Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.
Post by: Lar on 03/28/2017 01:19 pm
The core doesn't appear to be sooty at all. I suppose besides washing it, they put on a fresh coat of spam?
The RP-1 tank and interstage still look pretty sooty. The LOX tank is always clean, and obviously the 2nd stage is bright white.
The "scars of battle" I suppose. Presumably someone in SpaceX decided that a grubby-looking stage would/should perform no differently to a freshly-painted one whilst saving a few $k in paint and labour.
Perhaps the grubby-ness is part of their testing regime? You know, to see if it gets more grubby??
One reason to not re-paint is that fresh paint adds weight. Extra pounds on the first stage reduces stack overall performance to orbit. If the existing paint is still doing its proper job, leave it alone. Wash it, check it, paint over patches where it is damaged if necessary and go back to work. Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.
"We run the tightest (space)ship in the shipping business"
UPS might not like them using that slogan but yeah. UPS washes trucks a lot, (it saves fuel), but doesn't repaint them unless they have to. (it adds weight)... same exact thinking.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/28/2017 02:55 pm
Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?
Post by: mheney on 03/28/2017 03:19 pm
Washing off the soot also saves weight (and possibly reduces drag) and restores launch to nominal performance values.
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?
Yes - right until liftoff. Vibration and airflow tend to clean the ice off pretty effectively.
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/28/2017 03:33 pm
QuoteOur CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818 (https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818)
https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7 (https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7)
Here are some notes:
* Mass is 5281.7 kg, insertion orbit will be 35410 km x 218 km at 26.2º, so barely subsynchronous GTO. Orbit raising will be done with chemical engines.
* SES block bought SES-10, SES-11, SES-14, SES-16. Then last August they were approached with the opportunity to use a pre-flown booster.
* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.
* First stage booster is contractually obligated to make certain altitude, velocity, downrange, etc. SpaceX works with the leftovers for landing. This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
* Satellite requires 13 hours of checkouts once the full stack is vertical on the pad.
Post by: WmThomas on 03/28/2017 03:59 pm
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?
If you look at the returned stages, the bottom half is always very dark, and it looks almost painted that way. That's because, as you note, the cold LOX tanks create ice on the exterior, and this keeps most of the soot off of that (upper) half of the stage. But the bottom half (yes, it's not exactly half) contains warmer RP-1, and that's one reason it collects a lot more soot in the landing process.
Post by: Comga on 03/28/2017 04:48 pm
QuoteOur CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818 (https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818)
https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7 (https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7)
Here are some notes:
(snip)
* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.
(snip)
For those of you speculating on the increased risk to the payload, all the things that could be degrading from launch to launch and the "unknown unknowns", the professionals have spoken, putting money on the line.
The increase in risk pricing is 0.01%.
edit: grammar
Post by: king1999 on 03/28/2017 05:04 pm
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?
If you look at the returned stages, the bottom half is always very dark, and it looks almost painted that way. That's because, as you note, the cold LOX tanks create ice on the exterior, and this keeps most of the soot off of that (upper) half of the stage. But the bottom half (yes, it's not exactly half) contains warmer RP-1, and that's one reason it collects a lot more soot in the landing process.
Doesn't that mean that a layer of ice had been with the booster all the time until it landed? I think the soot was from the three burns, probably most from the first two burns.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/28/2017 05:07 pm
Isn't the first stage covered by ice anyway (from the cryogenic fuels)?
If you look at the returned stages, the bottom half is always very dark, and it looks almost painted that way. That's because, as you note, the cold LOX tanks create ice on the exterior, and this keeps most of the soot off of that (upper) half of the stage. But the bottom half (yes, it's not exactly half) contains warmer RP-1, and that's one reason it collects a lot more soot in the landing process.
Doesn't that mean that a layer of ice had been with the booster all the time until it landed? I think the soot was from the three burns, probably most from the first two burns.
Exactly... A very thin ice layer must stay with the tank throughout most of the flight. Either that, or the colder surface of the LOX tank makes it more difficult for the soot to adhere.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/28/2017 05:12 pm
In-space photos of old Atlas sustainer stages during Mercury missions showed a layer of what I would call "frost" still visible on much of the exterior of the LOX tank after Mercury capsule separation. Most of the heavy "ice" itself was vibrated off during the engine start phase.Doesn't that mean that a layer of ice had been with the booster all the time until it landed? I think the soot was from the three burns, probably most from the first two burns.
Exactly... A very thin ice layer must stay with the tank throughout most of the flight. Either that, or the colder surface of the LOX tank makes it more difficult for the soot to adhere.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: baldusi on 03/28/2017 05:31 pm
QuoteOur CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818 (https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818)
https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7 (https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7)
Here are some notes:
* Mass is 5281.7 kg, insertion orbit will be 35410 km x 218 km at 26.2º, so barely subsynchronous GTO. Orbit raising will be done with chemical engines.
* SES block bought SES-10, SES-11, SES-14, SES-16. Then last August they were approached with the opportunity to use a pre-flown booster.
* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.
* First stage booster is contractually obligated to make certain altitude, velocity, downrange, etc. SpaceX works with the leftovers for landing. This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
* Satellite requires 13 hours of checkouts once the full stack is vertical on the pad.
I get 1,788m/s of delta-v deficit. So, while technically slightly subsynchronous, it would still be better than Cape standard 1,804m/s.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/28/2017 06:22 pm
NOTE: Posting this because it was after their periscope live feed ended.
Post by: francesco nicoli on 03/28/2017 06:23 pm
cool times to live in!
Post by: gospacex on 03/28/2017 06:26 pm
The peak load on it during launch is only some ~5 seconds.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 07:10 pm
Quote
We launch again in two days! @SpaceX #Falcon9 will deliver the #SES10 communications satellite into orbit at 6:27 p.m. ET.
https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081 (https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081)
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/28/2017 07:13 pm
Not sure what the 6:27pm refers to. GTO insertion?QuoteWe launch again in two days! @SpaceX #Falcon9 will deliver the #SES10 communications satellite into orbit at 6:27 p.m. ET.
https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081 (https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081)
Likely, this is what the the SES-9 press kit says:
00:27:07 2nd stage engine restarts
00:27:55 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-2)
Edit: Apparently unlikely, as the 45th has updated their website to 6:27pm as well.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/28/2017 07:59 pm
Not sure what the 6:27pm refers to. GTO insertion?QuoteWe launch again in two days! @SpaceX #Falcon9 will deliver the #SES10 communications satellite into orbit at 6:27 p.m. ET.
https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081 (https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081)
Likely, this is what the the SES-9 press kit says:
00:27:07 2nd stage engine restarts
00:27:55 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-2)
Edit: Apparently unlikely, as the 45th has updated their website to 6:27pm as well.
This would match comments this morning from Martin Halliwell regarding the FAA's opposition to closing down air space for more than 2hr chunks of time for commercial launches. Given a window close of 2030EDT, a 1827 EDT launch would make sense.
Post by: cscott on 03/28/2017 08:35 pm
This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then. Maybe a three-engine landing burn again, and they've
EDIT: from the launch log (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40544.msg1550541#msg1550541), only 4 attempts at multi-engine burns:
SES-9: 3-engine burn, unsuccessful.
JCSAT-14: 3-engine burn, successful.
Thaicom-8: 1-3-1 burn, successful. (Not a 3-engine *landing* burn AIUI.)
Eutelsat 117W: 3-engine burn, unsuccessful.
Post by: pb2000 on 03/28/2017 08:39 pm
Most of the successful GTO landings were 3 engine hoverslams.This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then. Maybe a three-engine landing burn again, and they've never yet been successful with that.
Post by: Mader Levap on 03/28/2017 10:33 pm
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then.It is very obvious from context (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845290713776451584) that "fate" comment is about success of relaunch itself, not landing or anything else.
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else. ::)
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/28/2017 10:35 pm
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Post by: cscott on 03/28/2017 11:23 pm
A wise engineer understands there are always "unknown unknowns".
If anything, the idea of fate (a preordained destiny we are not yet privy to) is more physics-plausible than the idea that painting a clover will affect that future. (But I would personally see the clover as an expression of humility and acceptance of fate, an "offering to the gods" acknowledging we are mortal, rather than a serious attempt to alter the outcome.)
Post by: cppetrie on 03/28/2017 11:26 pm
The same CEO who puts a four-leaf clover on every mission patch, and on some of his ships as well?Exactly. When you're doing super complicated things that have to have a million things work just right it doesn't hurt to appeal to as many potential sources of success as possible.
A wise engineer understands there are always "unknown unknowns".
Post by: iamlucky13 on 03/28/2017 11:37 pm
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Someone who has rapidly disassembled 5 rockets so far, the cheapest of which cost more than the average American will earn over their entire lifetime, *just might* be tempted to suggest in a casual comment on a social media site that it's somewhat difficult to control all the factors affecting the success of any given launch, resulting in apparent variability that seems as fickle as fate.
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 03/29/2017 01:12 am
The same CEO who puts a four-leaf clover on every mission patch, and on some of his ships as well?
A wise engineer understands there are always "unknown unknowns".
If anything, the idea of fate (a preordained destiny we are not yet privy to) is more physics-plausible than the idea that painting a clover will affect that future. (But I would personally see the clover as an expression of humility and acceptance of fate, an "offering to the gods" acknowledging we are mortal, rather than a serious attempt to alter the outcome.)
And within that position of humility, a hope that said offering will find favor in the Land of The Ancestors...
A beautiful Pagan sentiment many thousands of years older than our present religions... if you don't mind, I'll be stealing that, with attribution to the writer...
Gramps
Edit,
I believe the actual impetuous to put the four leaf clover on SpaceX patches, etc. comes from Gwynne Shotwell, and is in memory of her ancestry...
Post by: deruch on 03/29/2017 01:53 am
He's clearly not putting the success of the rocket launch "in the hands of fate" (unless Fate happens to be the name of one of their QA managers), but he might be propitiating fate by not jinxing the launch and talking about its success as though it were a completely foregone conclusion.I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Post by: Donosauro on 03/29/2017 02:06 am
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Someone who has rapidly disassembled 5 rockets so far, the cheapest of which cost more than the average American will earn over their entire lifetime, *just might* be tempted to suggest in a casual comment on a social media site that it's somewhat difficult to control all the factors affecting the success of any given launch, resulting in apparent variability that seems as fickle as fate.
Well said!
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/29/2017 06:09 am
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Someone who has rapidly disassembled 5 rockets so far, the cheapest of which cost more than the average American will earn over their entire lifetime, *just might* be tempted to suggest in a casual comment on a social media site that it's somewhat difficult to control all the factors affecting the success of any given launch, resulting in apparent variability that seems as fickle as fate.
Six if you include F9R Dev1
Post by: Semmel on 03/29/2017 08:12 am
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then.It is very obvious from context (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845290713776451584) that "fate" comment is about success of relaunch itself, not landing or anything else.
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else. ::)
I think the same way. I wrote this in the fairing recovery thread but it is just as applicable here:
I am pretty sure the fate comment is about the first stage reuse. It's the one thing that is disruptive of the launch industry. It's the one thing the success of SpaceX will hinge on. I mean not this flight particularly but reuse in general. This flight is the first occasion where proving reuse is possible and maybe even economic. Any other technical challenge like fairing reuse will not determine SpaceXs future. But reuse must work or SpaceX has failed. That's why (in my opinion) musk is talking about fate.
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/29/2017 09:06 am
1. Space is hard. Space will always be hard.
2. Building rockets is hard at first but gets semi-easier as a knowledge and data bases are developed. Also advancments in computer power and modeling help greatly.
3. Flight rationale is derived from how hard you test but far more by how much components fly.
4. Keep it simple stupid. The more complex a system is the more things can go wrong.
5. Building really big rockets eventually becomes easy, but making them economically viable is imuch harder (especially if you throw them away after use).
6. Throwing away complex and expensive vehicles after only one or a handful of uses doesn't work.
7. Government only spaceflight is a starting point but is not viable in the long term. Pushing the envelope for the sake of technology or pork does not work either (venture star, cxp and many more).
8. Government should provide the means and support to lead but cannot be the source of exploration.
9. Space must be made economically viable to access otherwise it will never be developed or accessed.
10. There are very compelling if not totally demanding reasons to explore and develop our solar system.
11. Winged lifting body vehicles or any vehicle requiring a complex heat shield that wastes much of its mass on the vehicle itself are not the way to go. They work (for leo) but require massive overhaul and bring extra complexity and risk, at least given current technology.
12. Wasted upmass is wasted money.
13. Rockets are not LEGO elements.
14. Politicians should not build rockets.
15. The commercial industry actually can do it (sometimes harder to believe than to see).
16. Re-usability is the key to the future of exploration if there is one to be had.
17. Human spaceflight is very very hard but it can be gradually made easier.
18. Space stations are very good ideas but building them in small pieces may or may not have been, the jury is still out.
19. We have alot more to learn.
20. Never give up.
Here's to everything so far, and yes this leaves alot out feel free to debate it. Really hope this thing works, if it does the theory is no longer theory. What comes next is how to make it more easily reproduce-able and capitalize on it, but the hardest part is the first shot. I really hope it works.
GO SPACEX
Edit/Lar: "13. Rockets are not legos." is fixed. That's my pet peeve, people. Get it right. :)
Post by: jpo234 on 03/29/2017 10:22 am
1. Space is hard. Space will always be hard.
Once the technology is settled, it shouldn't be hard. I suspect that people initially thought the same about every new technological frontier. Once good solutions and practices are established, things become routine.
Airplanes are still highly complex systems, but once you have built thousands of them, it's just routine.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/29/2017 02:05 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/29/2017 04:57 pm
Post by: Flying Beaver on 03/29/2017 05:01 pm
http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow
The clock is counting down...
Post by: Comga on 03/29/2017 06:17 pm
Since this launch will probably represent the start of a totally new chapter in spaceflight, or at least we hope, here are twenty things off the top of my head that have been learned through blood sweat and tears up to this point:
1. Space is hard. Space will always be hard.
2.
.
.13. Rockets are not LEGO elements.
14.
.
.
.
Edit/Lar: "13. Rockets are not legos." is fixed. That's my pet peeve, people. Get it right. :)
A great benefit of this launch going well will be the reduction of this incessant talk.
One can't tell when new chapters of history open until much later.
We (almost) all believe, but that's what it is and will remain for a while.
And: Go Lar!
Post by: ChrisC on 03/29/2017 06:29 pm
Yesterday's SES press briefing
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc (https://youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc)
Thank you Space News 360 (http://spacenews360.com/) for the video! (And thanks FutureSpaceTourist for finding it).
For those on L2 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42370.msg1659556#msg1659556), a couple hours after the event yesterday, Chris Gebhardt also provided higher quality audio that including the Q+A that followed the official press event. I believe the video above includes that Q+A session.
Post by: Mader Levap on 03/29/2017 06:39 pm
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
It is something called "figure of speech". Maybe you heard about it? It basically means "we did everything humanly possible for that mission to succeed. Now light that candle."
I am pretty sure the fate comment is about the first stage reuse. (...)
This very short discussion (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845290713776451584) said nothing about first stage reuse. Question was about SES launch and answer was about SES launch. Simple.
8. Government should provide the means and support to lead but cannot be the source of exploration.
Not true. There is no money in exploration. How many companies you see launching probes to say Jupiter for commercial purpose (like, I dunno, selling Jupiter photos or something)?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/29/2017 06:48 pm
According to SFN update, currently still on track for launch Thursday:
Just about, but it's very tight. Our understanding is there's a long period of checkouts *when vertical on the pad* so they need to get out there before a certain time this evening to keep to that timeline.
Everyone keep one eye on 39A.
Post by: donaldp on 03/29/2017 06:53 pm
1. Space is hard. Space will always be hard.
...
19. We have alot more to learn.
Edit/Lar: "13. Rockets are not legos." is fixed. That's my pet peeve, people. Get it right. :)
Well done Lar, but one of my pet peeves is the non-word alot. It's "a lot". You don't say alittle so why do people insist on writing alot?
Post by: georgegassaway on 03/29/2017 07:21 pm
This very short discussion (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845290713776451584) said nothing about first stage reuse. Question was about SES launch and answer was about SES launch. Simple.
Let's review the actual discussion:
Quote
Steven Bowles @BlueBowles Mar 24
@elonmusk how excited are you about the SES launch next week?! I don't know how you're focused on model 3 with that ahead! #makinghistory
So, do you really think the question was about SES-10 making history as the first ever satellite to be named SES-10? And not because the launch will be making history as the first re-use of a first stage to put a satellite in orbit?
Quote
Elon MuskVerified account @elonmusk
@BlueBowles If fate is on our side, it will be amazing. Will talk about that in detail next week.
And do you think that Musk would say that a routine Falcon-9 launch will be "amazing" like all the other ones, because it is launching the one and only "historic" SES-10 satellite? :)
You really think he plans to be there to see it launch because it's all about the historic SES-10 satellite and not the reflight of booster 1021?
C'mon, it was about making history with the first re-used booster, to which Musk replied as he did. And it's not like Twitter encourages detailed questions or replies, both know what the history is about.
He likely mentioned "fate" in part to not jinx things by assuming it will all go perfectly.
And at least for the landing part, there is reason for concern about fate. Another high-risk "hot" re-entry and 3-engine landing burn (maybe 1-3-1). So the booster may be 100% successful in being the first reused first stage to launch a payload into orbit, but possibly not survive the landing. So, not as much reason to be confident about a safe landing as for the flights that can do a normal reentry burn.
Given that the two previous "hot" re-entry Falcons that landed safely, got so toasted that they apparently will not fly again, then #1021 probably won't fly again either. But if it lands safely, that will add massively to the positive story about successful re-launch, and more R&D they can get out of studying it later. And if any Falcon is "fated" to make it to the Smithsonian, this would be the top choice.
Post by: Lar on 03/29/2017 07:29 pm
1. Space is hard. Space will always be hard.
...
19. We have alot more to learn.
Edit/Lar: "13. Rockets are not legos." is fixed. That's my pet peeve, people. Get it right. :)
Well done Lar, but one of my pet peeves is the non-word alot. It's "a lot". You don't say alittle so why do people insist on writing alot?
OK that's too far off topic. I could have edited all of my peeves.... but that'd be mean. I just fixed the one I rant about EACH AND EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS. Don't make me do that! :)
Now back to SES-10 please
Post by: stcks on 03/29/2017 07:32 pm
Post by: Lar on 03/29/2017 07:34 pm
Is it just me or does SpaceX seems strangely quiet about this launch? I would have thought we would have seen at least a press release by now, possibly a teaser video or something... Surely I'm not the only one.
As we have been discussing, maybe they just don't want to jinx it. Eventually this all will be routine and there won't be thousands of fans watching (although I may never tire of watching hoverslam landings...) but for now this is a historic first reuse of a booster stage and... you can't have too many good luck charms!
Post by: stcks on 03/29/2017 07:45 pm
Is it just me or does SpaceX seems strangely quiet about this launch? I would have thought we would have seen at least a press release by now, possibly a teaser video or something... Surely I'm not the only one.
As we have been discussing, maybe they just don't want to jinx it. Eventually this all will be routine and there won't be thousands of fans watching (although I may never tire of watching hoverslam landings...) but for now this is a historic first reuse of a booster stage and... you can't have too many good luck charms!
I feel like SpaceX is missing a huge PR opportunity, but maybe thats coming tomorrow. Or maybe they are waiting for 1021's return.... I just can't believe Elon isn't out at the pad with a cadre of reporters asking him questions.
Post by: Barrie on 03/29/2017 07:51 pm
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/29/2017 07:56 pm
Point being, I personally think Musk's "fate" relates to a successful reflight of a booster - something that was, at least at one point, speculative at best according to many. Isn't that, therefore, enough?
I mean, we're at a potentially historic turning point in space flight. Isn't that enough?
Post by: Mike_1179 on 03/29/2017 08:02 pm
I mean, we're at a potentially historic turning point in space flight. Isn't that enough?
To be fair, we're a pretty narrow subset of the population here - those who would get excited about a booster re-use.
Re-use is only historic if you can demonstrate it is quick and with limited re-work between flights. Again, that's a discussion we've beaten to death on this place.
The general public (or at least those outside of this forum) paid attention for a few minutes when SpaceX landed a booster at CCAFS - that was something that seemed neat and it looked like an old sci-fi movie. Using the bottom part of a rocket a second time is an important next step, but it's not a moonshot.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/29/2017 08:10 pm
Quite understandable. I wish them and SES the best. Because sometimes after you've done all you can, you still have to go ahead and take the gamble. Like they need to do now.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/29/2017 08:12 pm
Post by: envy887 on 03/29/2017 08:12 pm
Post by: Nomadd on 03/29/2017 08:18 pm
If they get this worked out in the next year, maybe they'll only need to build one booster for Boca Chica until they move up from one a month. Maybe two boosters in case Home Depot is closed the day they need to buy parts for refurbishment.
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/29/2017 08:41 pm
Matthew
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/29/2017 08:59 pm
I'm a little surprised this didn't raise the insurance rate. There are a whole lot of factors you can't test on a stand.But then, who says that this booster is LESS safe than a never before flown booster? I think the risk about evens out.
If they get this worked out in the next year, maybe they'll only need to build one booster for Boca Chica until they move up from one a month. Maybe two boosters in case Home Depot is closed the day they need to buy parts for refurbishment.
Post by: Reflectiv on 03/29/2017 09:18 pm
I'm a little surprised this didn't raise the insurance rate.
I recommend Martin Halliwell's answer to this, in the previously mentioned media event - at 17:38.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc&feature=youtu.be&t=17m38s
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/29/2017 09:18 pm
Brady Kenniston @TheFavoritist 6m6 minutes ago
@NASASpaceflight At least one blue forklift/skytrack type machine was moving around on the pad but that’s all the activity I could see.
--
Still waiting on Falcon 9 rollout.
Post by: Oersted on 03/29/2017 09:39 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/29/2017 09:55 pm
With the re-use attempt of the Falcon 9 and the up-and-coming start of Model 3 production (plus various minor endeavours such as photovoltaic roof tiles, solar panels, Hyperloop, tunnel boring, battery production) was there ever another Man of Industry with more irons in the fire and more risk on the line? This year will be incredible intense for Musk. Hope he holds up.
You forgot Neuralink.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-hy-musk-neuralink-20170328-story.html
Post by: envy887 on 03/29/2017 10:10 pm
I'm a little surprised this didn't raise the insurance rate. There are a whole lot of factors you can't test on a stand.
The insurance market is pretty competitive right now:
Quote
The good news so far in 2016 is offset by the fact that the cost of insurance covering a satellite’s launch and first year in orbit is at an historic low of around 5 percent, some 60 percent less than the rate 10 years ago.
The reason: The continued success of the Ariane 5 rocket, whose last failure was in 2002, and the fact that space insurance underwriting has generated good profit over the years. The promise of easy money has attracted many new underwriters, who now compete for a place in the policies of the biggest operators such as Intelsat, SES, Eutelsat and Inmarsat.
“Ariane 5 insurance rates are around the 4 percent mark,” said Russell Sawyer, executive director of Willis Towers Watson’s Inspace brokerage. “If you had talked about launch and in-orbit rates being that low 15 years ago, everybody would have thought you were crazy.”
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket can be insured for only slightly higher rates than Ariane 5. Russia’s Proton vehicle, which has suffered multiple failures in the past five years, is insured at around triple the rate for Ariane 5, according to figures produced by underwriter SCOR Global.
http://spacenews.com/space-insurers-warn-that-current-low-rates-are-not-sustainable/
Post by: manoweb on 03/29/2017 10:28 pm
OK. You wanted an opinion? From a mod? Here you go:
As a reader, I was intrigued by the discussion at first, and I learned a bit more about scheduling than I already know. But then it started to get into beating a dead horse territory and second guessing territory, and I got bored. I've been a PM myself (what a thankless job!!) and I thought Brovane's example was SPOT ON. It fit this
Thanks for the explanation. First of all, I have met user Brovane personally and he's a great guy, so I am sorry if it seemed like I was being hostile to him in the discussion - I totally wasn't.
However I am still far from convinced the analogy with the switch replacement applies to the SES-10 launch or SpaceX activities in general.
At the end it happened that they got delayed by other reasons unfortunately. I hope SpaceX will start ramping up launch rates soon!
PS I also used to work for IBM, I think it is exactly 10 years this month when I left! Good memories.
Post by: butters on 03/29/2017 10:48 pm
Post by: faramund on 03/29/2017 10:53 pm
I think people overly neglect history - how about Thomas Edison?With the re-use attempt of the Falcon 9 and the up-and-coming start of Model 3 production (plus various minor endeavours such as photovoltaic roof tiles, solar panels, Hyperloop, tunnel boring, battery production) was there ever another Man of Industry with more irons in the fire and more risk on the line? This year will be incredible intense for Musk. Hope he holds up.
You forgot Neuralink.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-hy-musk-neuralink-20170328-story.html
Post by: clegg78 on 03/29/2017 11:10 pm
I think people overly neglect history - how about Thomas Edison?With the re-use attempt of the Falcon 9 and the up-and-coming start of Model 3 production (plus various minor endeavours such as photovoltaic roof tiles, solar panels, Hyperloop, tunnel boring, battery production) was there ever another Man of Industry with more irons in the fire and more risk on the line? This year will be incredible intense for Musk. Hope he holds up.
You forgot Neuralink.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-hy-musk-neuralink-20170328-story.html
Well... I don't think Musk is blatantly stealing ALL his ideas and calling them his own new inventions :) If Edison was anything, a thief is the main one.
Post by: cscott on 03/29/2017 11:12 pm
Is it just me or does SpaceX seems strangely quiet about this launch? I would have thought we would have seen at least a press release by now, possibly a teaser video or something... Surely I'm not the only one.SpaceX has been quiet, but Elon's been incredibly chatty this week on Twitter. Thing is, he's been talking about Tesla's model 3, his new Neuralink firm, OpenAI, and even a brief teaser for the lunar mission. I'm sure he'll squeeze SES-10 in there. Word was he was going to be attending the launch in person.
Post by: manoweb on 03/29/2017 11:27 pm
A key point from yesterday's SES briefing I haven't seen mentioned is why they think booster re-use is important. It isn't cost reduction, as satellite cost dwarfs launch cost, but more certainty on launch schedule and reduction in
Launch and satellite costs are not completely independent. If launches were extremely cheap, there would probably be a class of satellites that would not be built so expensive, would be replaced much more often to take advantage of new designs etc...
Post by: Lars-J on 03/30/2017 12:04 am
With the re-use attempt of the Falcon 9 and the up-and-coming start of Model 3 production (plus various minor endeavours such as photovoltaic roof tiles, solar panels, Hyperloop, tunnel boring, battery production) was there ever another Man of Industry with more irons in the fire and more risk on the line? This year will be incredible intense for Musk. Hope he holds up.
Can we keep this thread on topic? General Elon Musk talk should probably go elsewhere.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/30/2017 12:09 am
I might add that I find it amazing that's there's been almost a deafening silence lately when it comes to the spreadsheet created by Tory Bruno (or at least touted by him) and then vigorously debated on this forum on the cost benefit of reuse.
It was created by Dr. George Sowers, VP Advanced Programs for United Launch Alliance. Who has chosen in the past week to retire.
I have wondered about that coincidence. I wish him well in retirement.
The true significance of the success of this mission is for SX alone. Musk said that he would have considered them to have failed if LV reuse did not succeed.
Many have forgotten this. He hasn't.
If this mission succeeds, and nothing more comes of it ... SX has, as a venture, succeeded in his opinion.
I wish him and SX well in their accomplishment and reaching the goal they set for themselves.
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 01:21 am
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43
SES-10 MECO @ 2:38
:o :o :o
No wonder SpaceX said they would give SES some pieces of this booster.... ;D
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/30/2017 01:37 am
Comparing press kits...
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43
SES-10 MECO @ 2:38
:o :o :o
No wonder SpaceX said they would give SES some pieces of this booster.... ;D
Surely they'll be throttling the engines for much of the flight rather than trying to land on 3% propellant reserves...!
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 01:43 am
Comparing press kits...
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43
SES-10 MECO @ 2:38
:o :o :o
No wonder SpaceX said they would give SES some pieces of this booster.... ;D
Surely they'll be throttling the engines for much of the flight rather than trying to land on 3% propellant reserves...!
Yeah, thats the only thing that makes sense. Its why just looking at burn times is often misleading, gotta also look at MECO velocity.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/30/2017 02:10 am
- Ed Kyle
Post by: cppetrie on 03/30/2017 02:12 am
Question. Does anyone know - and I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere - if B1021 will be flying this time with its original engines? We know that they were removed after its first flight.In the Q&A with the SES CTO he stated that no engines were replaced and that the booster is essentially all the original parts. No significant part replacements occurred.
- Ed Kyle
The relevant question and answer start at about 14:40.
Yesterday's SES press briefing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc)
Edit: including reference to video
Post by: docmordrid on 03/30/2017 02:30 am
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 02:38 am
Post by: Lars-J on 03/30/2017 02:59 am
Comparing press kits...
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43
SES-10 MECO @ 2:38
:o :o :o
No wonder SpaceX said they would give SES some pieces of this booster.... ;D
We already knew that they were going to attempt recovery/landing of this booster (again), so the earlier MECO time should not be a surprise. Some F9 flights have had MECO as early as ~2:30 (RTLS missions).
Post by: Toast on 03/30/2017 03:10 am
Comparing press kits...
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43
SES-10 MECO @ 2:38
:o :o :o
No wonder SpaceX said they would give SES some pieces of this booster.... ;D
We already knew that they were going to attempt recovery/landing of this booster (again), so the earlier MECO time should not be a surprise. Some F9 flights have had MECO as early as ~2:30 (RTLS missions).
Since Echostar-23 was an expendable launch, I think the implication was that MECO time was late, not early. Unless the throttle profile is different, five seconds is a really tight margin.
Post by: Req on 03/30/2017 03:11 am
Water tower on the left, RSS on the right. Couldn't see a stage with that method anyway as it would be blocked by the RSS. See here: https://gfycat.com/HoarseFriendlyArcticwolf
This stack even without it's payload was well-lit and clearly visible the morning before the static fire. I was watching the stream so I saw it, and Flying Beaver posted a screengrab from his phone, which I have attached, in the updates thread here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1658921#msg1658921
Edit: I also remember seeing what looked like rotating emergency/caution/etc lights on a vehicle for quite a while before it went upright.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/30/2017 03:21 am
Since Echostar-23 was an expendable launch, I think the implication was that MECO time was late, not early. Unless the throttle profile is different, five seconds is a really tight margin.
I see... But 9 engines burning for 5 seconds at full thrust is a LOT of propellant. Enough for a 45 second landing burn at full thrust.
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 03:26 am
Since Echostar-23 was an expendable launch, I think the implication was that MECO time was late, not early. Unless the throttle profile is different, five seconds is a really tight margin.
I see... But 9 engines burning for 5 seconds at full thrust is a LOT of propellant. Enough for a 45 second landing burn at full thrust.
Where's your re-entry burn then? Need a 3 engine re-entry burn and a landing burn. Its going to be tight, not saying they can't do it, but its coming in hot.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/30/2017 03:35 am
Since Echostar-23 was an expendable launch, I think the implication was that MECO time was late, not early. Unless the throttle profile is different, five seconds is a really tight margin.
I see... But 9 engines burning for 5 seconds at full thrust is a LOT of propellant. Enough for a 45 second landing burn at full thrust.
Where's your re-entry burn then? Need a 3 engine re-entry burn and a landing burn. Its going to be tight, not saying they can't do it, but its coming in hot.
That was just an example to illustrate how much longer the propellant can last for one engine instead of nine. Here is what the burn durations were for the last droneship landing:
- braking burn: 15 seconds (3 engines)
- landing burn: 30 seconds (1 engine)
Assuming those burns where at full thrust, that is ~8.3 seconds worth of propellant for all nine engines. Not a lot.
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 04:04 am
Since Echostar-23 was an expendable launch, I think the implication was that MECO time was late, not early. Unless the throttle profile is different, five seconds is a really tight margin.
I see... But 9 engines burning for 5 seconds at full thrust is a LOT of propellant. Enough for a 45 second landing burn at full thrust.
Where's your re-entry burn then? Need a 3 engine re-entry burn and a landing burn. Its going to be tight, not saying they can't do it, but its coming in hot.
That was just an example to illustrate how much longer the propellant can last for one engine instead of nine. Here is what the burn durations were for the last droneship landing:
- braking burn: 15 seconds (3 engines)
- landing burn: 30 seconds (1 engine)
Assuming those burns where at full thrust, that is ~8.3 seconds worth of propellant for all nine engines. Not a lot.
Yeah and a different trajectory and/or throttle profile is likely the difference. 45 total engine seconds is probably not enough to make it down in one piece, but around 75 or so should be doable.
Post by: king1999 on 03/30/2017 04:06 am
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43 doesn't mean it used up all fuel at that moment. It must have some margin to recover from one or two engine failure. Thus the margin for SES-10 should be more than 5 seconds.Comparing press kits...
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43
SES-10 MECO @ 2:38
:o :o :o
No wonder SpaceX said they would give SES some pieces of this booster.... ;D
We already knew that they were going to attempt recovery/landing of this booster (again), so the earlier MECO time should not be a surprise. Some F9 flights have had MECO as early as ~2:30 (RTLS missions).
Since Echostar-23 was an expendable launch, I think the implication was that MECO time was late, not early. Unless the throttle profile is different, five seconds is a really tight margin.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/30/2017 05:18 am
That was just an example to illustrate how much longer the propellant can last for one engine instead of nine. Here is what the burn durations were for the last droneship landing:
- braking burn: 15 seconds (3 engines)
- landing burn: 30 seconds (1 engine)
Assuming those burns where at full thrust, that is ~8.3 seconds worth of propellant for all nine engines. Not a lot.
Yeah and a different trajectory and/or throttle profile is likely the difference. 45 total engine seconds is probably not enough to make it down in one piece, but around 75 or so should be doable.
Do you have any numbers to back that '75 seconds' up? A whole 30 seconds more??? And different compared to what - do you expect this to be radically different than previous downrange landings. If so, show some data from earlier flights.
I don't think most realize how much difference just a few seconds of thrust makes when the stage is nearly empty.
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 05:33 am
That was just an example to illustrate how much longer the propellant can last for one engine instead of nine. Here is what the burn durations were for the last droneship landing:
- braking burn: 15 seconds (3 engines)
- landing burn: 30 seconds (1 engine)
Assuming those burns where at full thrust, that is ~8.3 seconds worth of propellant for all nine engines. Not a lot.
Yeah and a different trajectory and/or throttle profile is likely the difference. 45 total engine seconds is probably not enough to make it down in one piece, but around 75 or so should be doable.
Do you have any numbers to back that '75 seconds' up? A whole 30 seconds more??? And different compared to what - do you expect this to be radically different than previous downrange landings. If so, show some data from earlier flights.
I don't think most realize how much difference just a few seconds of thrust makes when the stage is nearly empty.
I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me, but yes I fully understand this. Please go back and read what I have written.
Lets go through this again, using YOUR example:
15 second 3 engine braking burn == 45 engine seconds
30 second 1 engine landing burn == 30 engine seconds
45+30 = 75 engine seconds
Post by: manoweb on 03/30/2017 05:50 am
Post by: shooter6947 on 03/30/2017 05:52 am
And probably a shorter entry burn, too, accepting a higher heating load from greater aero-deceleration.
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 06:08 am
Won't there be one o' them 3-engine landing burns if the bird is coming in hot on bingo fuel?
And probably a shorter entry burn, too, accepting a higher heating load from greater aero-deceleration.
That was really the entire reason that I pointed out that there is only a 5 second difference in first stage burn time between SES-10 and Echostar-23. Then the conversation got a bit derailed ::).
To stick this landing, they are very likely going to have a shorter than usual entry burn and some form of 3-engine landing burn (be that 1-3-1 or purely 3). This is a MECO time only matched by the JCSAT-14 mission. All the others (not counting the expendable Echostar-23 obviously) were shorter by at least 2 seconds.
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/30/2017 06:20 am
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43 doesn't mean it used up all fuel at that moment. It must have some margin to recover from one or two engine failure. Thus the margin for SES-10 should be more than 5 seconds.Comparing press kits...
Echostar-23 MECO @ 2:43
SES-10 MECO @ 2:38
:o :o :o
No wonder SpaceX said they would give SES some pieces of this booster.... ;D
We already knew that they were going to attempt recovery/landing of this booster (again), so the earlier MECO time should not be a surprise. Some F9 flights have had MECO as early as ~2:30 (RTLS missions).
Since Echostar-23 was an expendable launch, I think the implication was that MECO time was late, not early. Unless the throttle profile is different, five seconds is a really tight margin.
SOP for expendable vehicles is to burn first stage to depletion, so any margin is passed on to the second stage to maximise its margins.
Post by: Jakusb on 03/30/2017 06:24 am
Quoteother than finishing with this quote stating that if all goes well, #1021 will never fly again
Is that really what the quote says?
If the SES boardroom gets a grid fin and a leg, does that mean #1021 will (or could) never fly again? ??? ;)
There could be several reasons to have core 1021 retire after this flight.
It took them months to refurbish, why take that trouble again when there are improved cores to refly?
Let's assume they just wanted to prove reflight for now. This would be the first core to fly twice, ever. Make it a museum piece.
Of course if SpaceX is confident enough they could relfy more times, but they are working hard on some improvements that should make future cores much more likely to need little to no refurbishment.
Use the data of this core to further that process and do not risk this core any further.
I really do not know what they will do, other then approach it pragmatically as they do with everything they do. They clearly know what they are doing.
Lets first see this core successfully fly again and hopefully also land again safely. That would be a major milestone and historic achievement.
Post by: Jarnis on 03/30/2017 06:57 am
But... unlikely, as they need to move to Block 5 soon or Dragon 2 manned flights will get pushed due to the requirement of flying X flights on a "frozen" config before manned flights.
Post by: toruonu on 03/30/2017 07:17 am
Post by: deruch on 03/30/2017 07:30 am
I'm willing to agree that they see it as a big step forwards, but I don't think this limited type of reuse rises to level of "Mission Accomplished" for Musk/SX. When Musk made those statements he was at least talking about full reuse, if not a "Fully and Rapidly Reused" LV. That's clearly still a milestone on their pathway to Mars, it's just been postponed to the ITS architecture instead of the Falcon family (i.e. no 2nd stage reuse for F9/FH). Booster reuse is just the (not so) low hanging fruit. The first step. So, while this launch will hopefully be a great success for SpaceX, no. They haven't (capital S) Succeeded, yet.I might add that I find it amazing that's there's been almost a deafening silence lately when it comes to the spreadsheet created by Tory Bruno (or at least touted by him) and then vigorously debated on this forum on the cost benefit of reuse.The true significance of the success of this mission is for SX alone. Musk said that he would have considered them to have failed if LV reuse did not succeed.
Many have forgotten this. He hasn't.
If this mission succeeds, and nothing more comes of it ... SX has, as a venture, succeeded in his opinion.
I wish him and SX well in their accomplishment and reaching the goal they set for themselves.
Post by: Flying Beaver on 03/30/2017 08:35 am
Forground booster is defiantly for NROL-76 (gridfins, etc for LZ-1 landing). The one behind todays flight booster though looks like a landed core that's been stripped down (No dance-floor/engines. With the top of the LOX tank visible of the right). The boosters used for CRS-9 is the only one (publicly) unaccounted for cape-side. Interesting though that it is fully cleaned, and even with the leg locking pin wiring still in place.
Not the Immersat-35E booster, as it is still at McGregor, it should depart there after this evenings launch.
Post by: Paul_G on 03/30/2017 08:58 am
Quote
Next up will be a series of checkouts and software uploads on the SES 10 communications satellite
Why would you wait until the satellite is mated and vertical on the pad before uploading software? Wouldn't it be easier to do this whilst you can stand net to it on the ground, or is the satellite not turned on until the rocket went vertical?
Also, is 13 hours checkout typical for a satellite - what kind of things would be covered here, and would the checkout time be the same if the satellite had been vertically integrated and not rotated 90' plus ?
Thanks
Paul
Post by: douglas100 on 03/30/2017 09:08 am
This is the first time we've seen the floor of the hangar with the TEL in position. It's still not clear if there would be enough space lengthwise to integrate a second stage with the other two cores in this configuration. (It's probably not necessary anyway.)
Another interesting clue is the 90T crane at the door. This suggests that a complete FH, minus payload, would be integrated on the floor, rather than the side boosters being lifted singly onto the TEL after the centre core and second stage have been loaded.
Slightly OT comments. On with the show!
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/30/2017 09:14 am
Do we know if they got the booster up and if so early enough to still make the original launch time or will there be a slip to 1.04?
Based on the tweet SES just sent (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1660154#msg1660154), looks like timeline is still ok.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/30/2017 09:53 am
Quote
DEIMOS IMAGING @deimosimaging 2m2 minutes ago
#LC39A @NASAKennedy looks crowded from the #DEIMOS2 orbit! Everything is getting ready for today’s #Falcon9 #SES10 launch.Good luck @SpaceX!
https://twitter.com/deimosimaging/status/847385017349058561 (https://twitter.com/deimosimaging/status/847385017349058561)
Post by: AncientU on 03/30/2017 10:34 am
I'm willing to agree that they see it as a big step forwards, but I don't think this limited type of reuse rises to level of "Mission Accomplished" for Musk/SX. When Musk made those statements he was at least talking about full reuse, if not a "Fully and Rapidly Reused" LV. That's clearly still a milestone on their pathway to Mars, it's just been postponed to the ITS architecture instead of the Falcon family (i.e. no 2nd stage reuse for F9/FH). Booster reuse is just the (not so) low hanging fruit. The first step. So, while this launch will hopefully be a great success for SpaceX, no. They haven't (capital S) Succeeded, yet.I might add that I find it amazing that's there's been almost a deafening silence lately when it comes to the spreadsheet created by Tory Bruno (or at least touted by him) and then vigorously debated on this forum on the cost benefit of reuse.The true significance of the success of this mission is for SX alone. Musk said that he would have considered them to have failed if LV reuse did not succeed.
Many have forgotten this. He hasn't.
If this mission succeeds, and nothing more comes of it ... SX has, as a venture, succeeded in his opinion.
I wish him and SX well in their accomplishment and reaching the goal they set for themselves.
How soon they forget...
Surviving the re-entry, soft-landing on the ocean, hitting (literally) the drone ship a couple times, landing on land, landing on the drone ship, re-firing a flown/hot landed booster 8 times, structurally testing a flown booster, static firing 1021, and finally... this upcoming 'first' step. Just picking the low hanging fruit.
There are many steps to go, no doubt, but this goal post moving was properly predicted by others.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/30/2017 12:50 pm
Backup launch slot is Saturday, not Friday:QuoteSpaceX is targeting launch of SES-10 from historic Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The two and a half hour launch window opens on Thursday, March 30, at 6:27 p.m. EDT, or 10:27 p.m. UTC. The satellite will deploy approximately 32 minutes after launch. A backup launch window opens on Saturday, April 1, at 6:27 p.m. EDT, or 10:27 p.m. UTC.
http://www.spacex.com/webcast (http://www.spacex.com/webcast)
Well that's new -- and not what SES and SpaceX said Tuesday. Interesting. Be fascinated to learn why this changed from backup on 3/31 to backup on 4/1.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/30/2017 12:52 pm
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/30/2017 12:57 pm
Also, is 13 hours checkout typical for a satellite - what kind of things would be covered here, and would the checkout time be the same if the satellite had been vertically integrated and not rotated 90' plus ?
IIRC, In the SES press briefing linked a few posts back, Martin Halliwell stated that the 13 hour checkout was typical for the satellite bus that they used for SES-10.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/30/2017 01:13 pm
Weather looking bad on Friday pushing the backup day to Saturday?
Although I think weather is most likely, could it be an FAA issue with closing airspace on Friday? Or does the range approval process include agreeing any airspace restrictions?
Post by: wardy89 on 03/30/2017 01:17 pm
Quote“We’re at the edge of quite significant bit of history here. This is big step for SES, for @SpaceX and for the industry.” M. Halliwell, SES
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/847434266447196161 (https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/847434266447196161)
That white stand to the right of the rocket is that to enable payload integration while the rocket is on the transport erector?
Post by: Paul_G on 03/30/2017 01:26 pm
Also, is 13 hours checkout typical for a satellite - what kind of things would be covered here, and would the checkout time be the same if the satellite had been vertically integrated and not rotated 90' plus ?
IIRC, In the SES press briefing linked a few posts back, Martin Halliwell stated that the 13 hour checkout was typical for the satellite bus that they used for SES-10.
Thanks - will check out the briefing.
Post by: Norm38 on 03/30/2017 01:47 pm
Post by: yokem55 on 03/30/2017 01:50 pm
Dirty core on the pad. :D
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/847414851076898817
You can barely make out the '21' tag on the booster in this pic.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/30/2017 01:51 pm
A question I don’t recall being asked or mentioned. Are the legs on this booster the same ones that were on the CRS-8 flight? Or are they new? Were they ever removed and refurbished in some way? Or just folded back up?
The legs were removed when the booster came back to port. The best public answer we have to this right now is that "all major elements of the booster are the same" from when it flew on CRS-8 last year.
Post by: gongora on 03/30/2017 01:55 pm
Not the Immersat-35E booster, as it is still at McGregor, it should depart there after this evenings launch.
Upcoming payloads include Inmarsat 5 F4, and then a couple flights later Intelsat 35e
Post by: ThePonjaX on 03/30/2017 02:12 pm
A question I don’t recall being asked or mentioned. Are the legs on this booster the same ones that were on the CRS-8 flight? Or are they new? Were they ever removed and refurbished in some way? Or just folded back up?
The legs were removed when the booster came back to port. The best public answer we have to this right now is that "all major elements of the booster are the same" from when it flew on CRS-8 last year.
Some details about refurbishement here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42630.0
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 03/30/2017 02:13 pm
I've been waiting to use that one to tweet NSF, and it is already past 10am local time in the eastern US.
Just looked here, and no article, yet:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/
Post by: jpo234 on 03/30/2017 02:27 pm
Dirty core on the pad. :D
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/847414851076898817
You can barely make out the '21' tag on the booster in this pic.
It's easier from the original sized image:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8KeiKPVYAARQM2.jpg:orig)
Edit: The link is to the original image, but the forum doesn't show it.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/30/2017 02:34 pm
Do we have an ETA on the launch day article that NSF usually posts?
I've been waiting to use that one to tweet NSF, and it is already past 10am local time in the eastern US.
Just looked here, and no article, yet:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/
When the EVA going on right now is done.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/30/2017 02:56 pm
Dirty core on the pad. :D
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/847414851076898817
You can barely make out the '21' tag on the booster in this pic.
It's easier from the original sized image:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8KeiKPVYAARQM2.jpg:orig)
Edit: The link is to the original image, but the forum doesn't show it.
I thought that re-flights of the same core were supposed to have a -number indicating the number of flights?
Very interesting this core does not have 21-1 or 21-2 painted on it...
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/30/2017 03:14 pm
Dirty core on the pad. :D
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/847414851076898817
You can barely make out the '21' tag on the booster in this pic.
It's easier from the original sized image:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8KeiKPVYAARQM2.jpg:orig)
Edit: The link is to the original image, but the forum doesn't show it.
I thought that re-flights of the same core were supposed to have a -number indicating the number of flights?
Very interesting this core does not have 21-1 or 21-2 painted on it...
They do get a number for each flight, but that was never going to be painted on the actual booster.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/30/2017 03:25 pm
Dirty core on the pad. :D
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/847414851076898817
You can barely make out the '21' tag on the booster in this pic.
It's easier from the original sized image:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8KeiKPVYAARQM2.jpg:orig)
Edit: The link is to the original image, but the forum doesn't show it.
I thought that re-flights of the same core were supposed to have a -number indicating the number of flights?
Very interesting this core does not have 21-1 or 21-2 painted on it...
They do get a number for each flight, but that was never going to be painted on the actual booster.
That's a bummer, I guess my understanding was mistaken. Thanks!
Post by: abaddon on 03/30/2017 03:41 pm
You can really tell when you look at the the interstage flush against the new S2, and the legs.
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/30/2017 03:44 pm
I was thinking they would clean it more, and I thought that picture of the Orbcomm2 booster looked cleaner. But I think it looks great!
1019 got a fresh coat of paint after it returned to Hawthorne, it appears 1021 has only been hosed down. Interesting that the interstage is original as well, we've heard reports of them getting really blasted at MVac startup.
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/30/2017 03:47 pm
Interesting that the interstage is new as well, we've heard reports of them getting really blasted at MVac startup.
Is it? Core 21's interstage for SES-10 looks just as dingy as the booster!
Post by: abaddon on 03/30/2017 03:52 pm
1019 got a fresh coat of paint after it returned to Hawthorne, it appears 1021 has only been hosed down.Ah, that makes sense.
Is it? Core 21's interstage for SES-10 looks just as dingy as the booster!Agreed, it definitely does not look new. That's what I was commenting on, that you can really tell the difference with the new S2 up against the used interstage.
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/30/2017 03:58 pm
1019 got a fresh coat of paint after it returned to Hawthorne, it appears 1021 has only been hosed down.Ah, that makes sense.Is it? Core 21's interstage for SES-10 looks just as dingy as the booster!Agreed, it definitely does not look new. That's what I was commenting on, that you can really tell the difference with the new S2 up against the used interstage.
Accidentally said new when I definitely meant flight-proven ;) Fixed now.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/30/2017 04:02 pm
1019 got a fresh coat of paint after it returned to Hawthorne, it appears 1021 has only been hosed down.Ah, that makes sense.Is it? Core 21's interstage for SES-10 looks just as dingy as the booster!Agreed, it definitely does not look new. That's what I was commenting on, that you can really tell the difference with the new S2 up against the used interstage.
The mission patch (see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1656644#msg1656644) shows a grey first stage and a white interstage.
Post by: padrat on 03/30/2017 04:05 pm
Quote“We’re at the edge of quite significant bit of history here. This is big step for SES, for @SpaceX and for the industry.” M. Halliwell, SES
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/847434266447196161 (https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/847434266447196161)
That white stand to the right of the rocket is that to enable payload integration while the rocket is on the transport erector?
Yes. Quite a bit of an upgrade from the one we had at 40.
Hmm.....I think it's been probably 7 or 8 years since I've been in a picture on here....
Post by: AJW on 03/30/2017 04:08 pm
They do get a number for each flight, but that was never going to be painted on the actual booster.
It would be traditional to go with mission marks.... Just need a silhouette of a Dragon.
Post by: envy887 on 03/30/2017 04:09 pm
1019 got a fresh coat of paint after it returned to Hawthorne, it appears 1021 has only been hosed down.Ah, that makes sense.Is it? Core 21's interstage for SES-10 looks just as dingy as the booster!Agreed, it definitely does not look new. That's what I was commenting on, that you can really tell the difference with the new S2 up against the used interstage.
The mission patch (see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1656644#msg1656644) shows a grey first stage and a white interstage.
It also shows a rocket with about half the fineness of a Falcon 9 v1.2, and a cloverleaf the size of Colorado floating in the Atlantic. There's some artistic license involved...
Post by: jpo234 on 03/30/2017 04:12 pm
1019 got a fresh coat of paint after it returned to Hawthorne, it appears 1021 has only been hosed down.Ah, that makes sense.Is it? Core 21's interstage for SES-10 looks just as dingy as the booster!Agreed, it definitely does not look new. That's what I was commenting on, that you can really tell the difference with the new S2 up against the used interstage.
The mission patch (see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1656644#msg1656644) shows a grey first stage and a white interstage.
It also shows a rocket with about half the fineness of a Falcon 9 v1.2, and a cloverleaf the size of Colorado floating in the Atlantic. There's some artistic license involved...
They were really careful to color the landing legs and the grid fins white.
Post by: envy887 on 03/30/2017 04:16 pm
1019 got a fresh coat of paint after it returned to Hawthorne, it appears 1021 has only been hosed down.Ah, that makes sense.Is it? Core 21's interstage for SES-10 looks just as dingy as the booster!Agreed, it definitely does not look new. That's what I was commenting on, that you can really tell the difference with the new S2 up against the used interstage.
The mission patch (see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1656644#msg1656644) shows a grey first stage and a white interstage.
It also shows a rocket with about half the fineness of a Falcon 9 v1.2, and a cloverleaf the size of Colorado floating in the Atlantic. There's some artistic license involved...
They were really careful to color the landing legs and the grid fins white.
And yet totally missed including the second stage? The flag and F9 logo are both supposed to be on the interstage. I wouldn't read too much into it.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/30/2017 04:49 pm
Do you have any numbers to back that '75 seconds' up? A whole 30 seconds more??? And different compared to what - do you expect this to be radically different than previous downrange landings. If so, show some data from earlier flights.
I don't think most realize how much difference just a few seconds of thrust makes when the stage is nearly empty.
I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me, but yes I fully understand this. Please go back and read what I have written.
Lets go through this again, using YOUR example:
15 second 3 engine braking burn == 45 engine seconds
30 second 1 engine landing burn == 30 engine seconds
45+30 = 75 engine seconds
Oh I see - sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you had added 30 seconds to the total.
Post by: 2megs on 03/30/2017 05:03 pm
I'm also assuming nobody's steely-eyed enough to let people in the 35th hour of a shift oversee the launch of a nine-figure payload. Does anyone know how SpaceX manages their staffing for things like this? Do they have three shifts worth of people handing off the various phases of final prep and checkout? What do they do with that many people when it's not launch day?
Post by: Arb on 03/30/2017 05:05 pm
With the re-use attempt of the Falcon 9 and the up-and-coming start of Model 3 production (plus various minor endeavours such as photovoltaic roof tiles, solar panels, Hyperloop, tunnel boring, battery production) was there ever another Man of Industry with more irons in the fire and more risk on the line? This year will be incredible intense for Musk. Hope he holds up.
Brunel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel)
Post by: stcks on 03/30/2017 05:06 pm
Oh I see - sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you had added 30 seconds to the total.
👍 👍 👍
No worries! Glad we are on the same page. And I apologize the snark last night.
Post by: Reflectiv on 03/30/2017 05:09 pm
The rocket didn't go vertical until around 4 AM. I'm assuming SpaceXers were working hard all day, right up until then (or it would have gone up earlier). Add on the "13 hours of checkouts" and then the prop loading and terminal count, and that makes 35 continuous hours of non-stop work there at the pad.
I'm also assuming nobody's steely-eyed enough to let people in the 35th hour of a shift oversee the launch of a nine-figure payload. Does anyone know how SpaceX manages their staffing for things like this? Do they have three shifts worth of people handing off the various phases of final prep and checkout? What do they do with that many people when it's not launch day?
That 13 hour check out is mostly being done by Airbus people.
Post by: PGNCSandAGC on 03/30/2017 05:26 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lend-AuwOjY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lend-AuwOjY)
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/30/2017 05:40 pm
Airb.us already announced the successful launch of SES-10... a bit earlier. :D
No launch slip in alternate universe 44!
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/30/2017 05:46 pm
Dead wrong.Musk said that he would have considered them to have failed if LV reuse did not succeed.When Musk made those statements he was at least talking about full reuse, if not a "Fully and Rapidly Reused" LV.
When he first made a claim of reuse for SX, it was Falcon 1 and about reusing the Merlin 1 (then A) engine.
Just that, parachute recovery of a partially damaged stage, to get at the engine in salt water. Continuing what started with Saturn 1B and refiring the engine, but re-manufacturing it into a stage.
Been a few changes since.
How soon they forget...Forget, ignorance, retconn, or intentionally mis state.
Quote
There are many steps to go, no doubt, but this goal post moving was properly predicted by others.They will always move the goal posts. They can only move goal posts.
It is what it is.
Post by: The Roadie on 03/30/2017 05:47 pm
Very interesting this core does not have 21-1 or 21-2 painted on it...This core originally didn't have even "21" painted on it. They started doing that with booster B1029.
Post by: punder on 03/30/2017 06:08 pm
Much appreciated!
Post by: Reflectiv on 03/30/2017 06:13 pm
Post by: punder on 03/30/2017 06:17 pm
punder: xfNO571C7Ko
Thank you Sir!
Post by: Formica on 03/30/2017 06:17 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62aqi7/rspacex_ses10_official_launch_discussion_updates/dfl9xge/
Quote
I've been waiting so long for this! I interned at LC-39A while the refurb was going on and boy did B1021 give us trouble! I'm so happy to finally see my baby fly!
Edit: since people are asking for more info, I'll give a couple fun problems we ran into.
- Trying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1
- Trying to remove parts that weren't originally intended to be removable
- Discovering parts on the booster that theoretically didn't exist before it launched
So, 1021 was a Block 2 booster that's been upgraded to Block 3, if this person is correct. More details in the thread.
Post by: abaddon on 03/30/2017 06:20 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/30/2017 06:24 pm
Former intern at KSC gives some very interesting details about 1021:
This already has its own thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42630.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42630.0)
Post by: Skylab on 03/30/2017 07:41 pm
Post by: Mader Levap on 03/30/2017 07:49 pm
Let's review the actual discussion:Ayup. It is about reuse. I guess my brainfart was caused by some people insisting it is about fairing reuse or roomba or whatever and I kneejerked.
Post by: Jarnis on 03/30/2017 08:01 pm
Can anyone offer a suggestion for the least laggy streaming site? I've tried SpaceX, Youtube, Ustream with varying results.
SpaceX these days = Youtube. Ustream doesn't have a stream of this launch as far as I know.
And in all honesty, if you can't stream Youtube well, your ISP is at fault - potentially doing it on purpose.
Post by: Mapperuo on 03/30/2017 08:01 pm
Can anyone offer a suggestion for the least laggy streaming site? I've tried SpaceX, Youtube, Ustream with varying results.
I'd say Youtube just because you can select a quality as low as 240p.
Post by: Skylab on 03/30/2017 08:22 pm
SpaceX these days = Youtube. Ustream doesn't have a stream of this launch as far as I know.Thanks, but I've got a 120 Mbps home connection from a good provider. I've just noticed lag before comparing the various streams. I'll just watch the Technical Webcast on Youtube then, perhaps with the Hosted one on a different system, at very low volume.
And in all honesty, if you can't stream Youtube well, your ISP is at fault - potentially doing it on purpose.
Post by: mn on 03/30/2017 08:32 pm
SpaceX these days = Youtube. Ustream doesn't have a stream of this launch as far as I know.Thanks, but I've got a 120 Mbps home connection from a good provider. I've just noticed lag before comparing the various streams. I'll just watch the Technical Webcast on Youtube then, perhaps with the Hosted one on a different system, at very low volume.
And in all honesty, if you can't stream Youtube well, your ISP is at fault - potentially doing it on purpose.
Different streams will seem ahead or behind based purely on when you loaded and a bit of luck. If you don't like your luck just reload the page. just load two pages and reload them randomly and you will see that sometimes this one is ahead and sometimes the other.
Post by: Formica on 03/30/2017 08:33 pm
This already has its own thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42630.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42630.0)Sorry, I was too excited thinking that I had something new to offer ::) I looked through the thread, but not the forum. My bad.
Post by: bstrong on 03/30/2017 08:46 pm
SpaceX these days = Youtube. Ustream doesn't have a stream of this launch as far as I know.Thanks, but I've got a 120 Mbps home connection from a good provider. I've just noticed lag before comparing the various streams. I'll just watch the Technical Webcast on Youtube then, perhaps with the Hosted one on a different system, at very low volume.
And in all honesty, if you can't stream Youtube well, your ISP is at fault - potentially doing it on purpose.
Different streams will seem ahead or behind based purely on when you loaded and a bit of luck. If you don't like your luck just reload the page. just load two pages and reload them randomly and you will see that sometimes this one is ahead and sometimes the other.
The trick is to set the Youtube playback speed to 1.25x. It will automatically reset to 1x after it has caught up to the minimum delay on a live stream.
Post by: dglow on 03/30/2017 08:47 pm
The look reminds me a little bit of Shuttle, which always looked a little dingy. (That sounds disparaging, but it really isn't. I always loved the Shuttle and that part was unique to it). I was thinking they would clean it more, and I thought that picture of the Orbcomm2 booster looked cleaner. But I think it looks great! The latest picture on the Update thread is just spectacular.
You can really tell when you look at the the interstage flush against the new S2, and the legs.
At the risk of heresy, perhaps Block 5 should introduce a new paint scheme. White isn't the easiest color to keep looking clean.
Post by: meekGee on 03/30/2017 08:53 pm
The 39A HIF pictured today:
Forground booster is defiantly for NROL-76 (gridfins, etc for LZ-1 landing). The one behind todays flight booster though looks like a landed core that's been stripped down (No dance-floor/engines. With the top of the LOX tank visible of the right). The boosters used for CRS-9 is the only one (publicly) unaccounted for cape-side. Interesting though that it is fully cleaned, and even with the leg locking pin wiring still in place.
Not the Immersat-35E booster, as it is still at McGregor, it should depart there after this evenings launch.
Awesome banner image from SpaceX.com of today's flight booster along with two others being prepped for future flights.
Are you sure there are two more stages? I'm not sure there's one in the back, and the other image on the update thread is showing the payload on the far side of the center aisle.
But at any rate, we see that they can start lining up a new stage before the next one is launched, so a pad delay does not affect (to some extend) the schedule of the next launch.
Post by: ugordan on 03/30/2017 08:55 pm
White isn't the easiest color to keep looking clean.
White paint isn't a fashion choice, not primarily anyways. Thermal control for when out in the (hot) sun.
Post by: bstrong on 03/30/2017 08:56 pm
Quote
Steve Jurvetson @dfjsteve
At KSC Pad 39A today for the first flight of a previously-flown SpaceX booster!! Photos: http://www.dfj.com/J
Post by: vanoord on 03/30/2017 09:05 pm
Are you sure there are two more stages? I'm not sure there's one in the back, and the other image on the update thread is showing the payload on the far side of the center aisle.
Big long white thing, 'SpaceX' written along it ;)
What's interesting about that one is that the intertank has been removed and you can see the upper tank dome.
Post by: dglow on 03/30/2017 09:17 pm
Damn, that's quite a list. Go SpaceX!
EDIT: not Roomba, still an incredible accomplishment
Post by: meekGee on 03/30/2017 09:24 pm
Need to look again, can't right now...
Are you sure there are two more stages? I'm not sure there's one in the back, and the other image on the update thread is showing the payload on the far side of the center aisle.
Big long white thing, 'SpaceX' written along it ;)
What's interesting about that one is that the intertank has been removed and you can see the upper tank dome.
But - there was a pre-nextGen picture of the payload, vertical, in the same hangar.
Musical chairs?
Post by: launchwatcher on 03/30/2017 09:35 pm
Not much shuffling required.Need to look again, can't right now...
Are you sure there are two more stages? I'm not sure there's one in the back, and the other image on the update thread is showing the payload on the far side of the center aisle.
Big long white thing, 'SpaceX' written along it ;)
What's interesting about that one is that the intertank has been removed and you can see the upper tank dome.
But - there was a pre-nextGen picture of the payload, vertical, in the same hangar.
Musical chairs?
If you're talking about the picture here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1660323#msg1660323
I think you can see the curve of the third booster peeking out around the right side of the fairing near the base.
Obviously the hangar has to be longer than a fully-assembled F9, so there should be plenty of room between the top of the booster and the hangar wall farthest from the pad.
Post by: vanoord on 03/30/2017 09:38 pm
Need to look again, can't right now...
But - there was a pre-nextGen picture of the payload, vertical, in the same hangar.
Musical chairs?
My suspicion...
The 'three F9s' photo has the TEL inside the hanger, with the payload fairing on the F9 which is on the TEL. There's an F9 without interstage visible behind the TEL.
The photo of the payload fairing was taken after encapsulation and during the time the F9 was outside, on the TEL for static fire. I *think* another F9 can just about be made out behind the payload fairing (circled below) which is the one hidden by the TEL in the other image.
The order of the cranes (90T nearest the pad, presumably to lift the launch table?- 30T - 50T) can be used to orient the images.
Post by: Paul_G on 03/30/2017 09:59 pm
The 39A HIF pictured today:
Forground booster is defiantly for NROL-76 (gridfins, etc for LZ-1 landing). The one behind todays flight booster though looks like a landed core that's been stripped down (No dance-floor/engines. With the top of the LOX tank visible of the right). The boosters used for CRS-9 is the only one (publicly) unaccounted for cape-side. Interesting though that it is fully cleaned, and even with the leg locking pin wiring still in place.
Not the Immersat-35E booster, as it is still at McGregor, it should depart there after this evenings launch.
This is the post that more clearly shows the 3rd stage behind the TEL.
Awesome banner image from SpaceX.com of today's flight booster along with two others being prepped for future flights.
Post by: atsf90east on 03/30/2017 10:13 pm
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/30/2017 10:14 pm
Post by: Brick_top on 03/30/2017 10:14 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/30/2017 10:14 pm
Is it just me, or is the SpaceX Technical Webcast on YouTube extremely blurry?
Looks great here in 1080p.
Post by: rpapo on 03/30/2017 10:16 pm
It seems to vary by camera.Is it just me, or is the SpaceX Technical Webcast on YouTube extremely blurry?
Looks great here in 1080p.
Post by: Brick_top on 03/30/2017 10:16 pm
Post by: atsf90east on 03/30/2017 10:17 pm
That fixed it - thanks!Is it just me, or is the SpaceX Technical Webcast on YouTube extremely blurry?
Looks great here in 1080p.
Post by: Oersted on 03/30/2017 10:18 pm
Post by: Brick_top on 03/30/2017 10:25 pm
Post by: vanoord on 03/30/2017 10:26 pm
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/30/2017 10:27 pm
Post by: ericspittle on 03/30/2017 10:30 pm
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/30/2017 10:31 pm
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/30/2017 10:35 pm
Post by: Oersted on 03/30/2017 10:37 pm
Post by: kevinof on 03/30/2017 10:37 pm
Post by: mrhuggy on 03/30/2017 10:38 pm
Congrats SpaceX
Post by: Hermit on 03/30/2017 10:40 pm
Looked like the grid fin on the right was getting a good cooking before the feed cut.
Yup, looked like some of it burned out. Be interesting to see the post-flight condition.
Edit: or thats the thermal protection doing its job. Thanks @DaveS
Post by: kevinof on 03/30/2017 10:41 pm
Looked like the grid fin on the right was getting a good cooking before the feed cut.
Yup, looked like some of it burned out. Be interesting to see the post-flight condition.
Post by: BigDustyman on 03/30/2017 10:42 pm
Post by: jtrame on 03/30/2017 10:42 pm
Post by: dglow on 03/30/2017 10:43 pm
Post by: drzerg on 03/30/2017 10:43 pm
Post by: Hauerg on 03/30/2017 10:44 pm
That was the ablative shielding doing what it was supposed to do. Methinks. Still spectacular.Looked like the grid fin on the right was getting a good cooking before the feed cut.
Yup, looked like some of it burned out. Be interesting to see the post-flight condition.
Edit: or thats the thermal protection doing its job. Thanks @DaveS
Post by: iamlucky13 on 03/30/2017 10:44 pm
Looked like the grid fin on the right was getting a good cooking before the feed cut.
I noticed that, too. I assume it has happened on other hot entries, but I hadn't noticed it in progress before. These two screenshots caught it well:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1660825#msg1660825
Post by: Halidon on 03/30/2017 10:44 pm
Post by: mikelepage on 03/30/2017 10:44 pm
Post by: punder on 03/30/2017 10:45 pm
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 03/30/2017 10:45 pm
Post by: Darkseraph on 03/30/2017 10:45 pm
Post by: Dao Angkan on 03/30/2017 10:46 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/30/2017 10:48 pm
Post by: redliox on 03/30/2017 10:50 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/30/2017 10:50 pm
Those grid finds were getting well-cooked before the rocketcam got too schmutzed up and they cut the feed. :)
I like the cooking of the grid fins. It helps show that this isn't a light trip through the atmosphere.
Congrats SpaceX
Post by: AC in NC on 03/30/2017 10:51 pm
T+3:43: Fairing Separation
T+3:57: Recovery Vessels have AOS
I don't recall that final callout before or that the 1st Stage has a signal acquired by the Drone Ship and Tenders.
AOS of Fairing Recovery Signals?
Post by: watermod on 03/30/2017 10:52 pm
Status of farings?
Post by: tdrb6115 on 03/30/2017 10:52 pm
Those grid finds were getting well-cooked before the rocketcam got too schmutzed up and they cut the feed. :)It freezed before they cut it off...
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Post by: pietro on 03/30/2017 10:52 pm
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 03/30/2017 10:53 pm
Post by: inonepiece on 03/30/2017 10:54 pm
Anybody like to guess re fairing?
Post by: rcoppola on 03/30/2017 10:58 pm
Post by: fatdeeman on 03/30/2017 11:00 pm
I didn't believe we would see humans on mars in our lifetime until I witnessed just how fast Spacex work....it's only the past couple of years that I have begun to truly believe.
Post by: vanoord on 03/30/2017 11:01 pm
Well, how long till next time?? They must be itching to turn it around again!
Fly it again or park it in the rocket garden at KSC?
If it is indeed an early and possibly non-standard Block 3, there may be no particular benefit in flying it again unless they're getting short of cores.
There's going to be a point when these recovered Block 3 cores start being flown in expendable mode - if only because they're taking up valuable storage space!
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/30/2017 11:04 pm
Well, how long till next time?? They must be itching to turn it around again!
Fly it again or park it in the rocket garden at KSC?
If it is indeed an early and possibly non-standard Block 3, there may be no particular benefit in flying it again unless they're getting short of cores.
There's going to be a point when these recovered Block 3 cores start being flown in expendable mode - if only because they're taking up valuable storage space!
I'd say another thorough inspection, a test fire, and on to the Smithsonian if they can find room for it.
Post by: AC in NC on 03/30/2017 11:05 pm
It doesn't seem that long ago that people were saying they would never pull off landings let alone re-usability and yet here we are. The innovation and rate at which spacex make progress is astonishing.
I didn't believe we would see humans on mars in our lifetime until I witnessed just how fast Spacex work....it's only the past couple of years that I have begun to truly believe.
Have I lost perspective on time or are we at just over 15 months from 1st landing to Reuse and Landing?
Post by: JazzFan on 03/30/2017 11:05 pm
Post by: meekGee on 03/30/2017 11:06 pm
It doesn't seem that long ago that people were saying they would never pull off landings let alone re-usability and yet here we are. The innovation and rate at which spacex make progress is astonishing.
I didn't believe we would see humans on mars in our lifetime until I witnessed just how fast Spacex work....it's only the past couple of years that I have begun to truly believe.
Have I lost perspective on time or are we at just over 15 months from 1st landing to Reuse and Landing?
With AMOS-6 in the middle.
Post by: beck on 03/30/2017 11:06 pm
"Looks like we're where we want to be!"
[...]
He looked at his screen for a bit and then said "good enough orbit". That 'enough' is enough to make me worry.
It also wonder about this, especially as the SES-10 deploy seems too early and surprising for everyone
Post by: Keeval on 03/30/2017 11:07 pm
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/30/2017 11:08 pm
Was it not April last year?It doesn't seem that long ago that people were saying they would never pull off landings let alone re-usability and yet here we are. The innovation and rate at which spacex make progress is astonishing.
I didn't believe we would see humans on mars in our lifetime until I witnessed just how fast Spacex work....it's only the past couple of years that I have begun to truly believe.
Have I lost perspective on time or are we at just over 15 months from 1st landing to Reuse and Landing?
Post by: cppetrie on 03/30/2017 11:08 pm
Yeah I was just about to ask - did it not deploy a little early?Why would it matter? After SECO2 it's just coasting.
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/30/2017 11:09 pm
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/30/2017 11:10 pm
Yeah I was just about to ask - did it not deploy a little early?The press kit called for deployment at +00:32:03. Judging from the cheers on the webcast, deployment occurred just before +00:32:05.
Post by: sewebster on 03/30/2017 11:10 pm
Does it look like the rocket was pitched up relative to its exhaust angle in the last ~30 seconds of its flight to anyone else?
I saw the same thing, kinda assumed it was an viewing angle thing...
Post by: kevinof on 03/30/2017 11:10 pm
Does it look like the rocket was pitched up relative to its exhaust angle in the last ~30 seconds of its flight to anyone else?
Post by: Keeval on 03/30/2017 11:11 pm
Yeah I was just about to ask - did it not deploy a little early?Why would it matter? After SECO2 it's just coasting.
I suppose it wouldn't - I'm just used to the deployment matching the timeline and it surprised me, but as you say it is just coasting in GTO so it wouldn't actually matter.
The press kit called for deployment at +00:32:03. Judging from the cheers on the webcast, deployment occurred just before +00:32:05.
Ahh cool - so it looks like the timeline indicator at the bottom of the screen was a bit out.
Post by: Earendil on 03/30/2017 11:11 pm
While I am sure some will say "it's not yet clear if this all is worth it".. I will just say.. amazing job SX.. a good time to be alive..
Post by: beck on 03/30/2017 11:12 pm
Yeah I was just about to ask - did it not deploy a little early?Why would it matter? After SECO2 it's just coasting.
Maybe for timing, as the SES-10 might be confused if it get's the separation signal too early.
Does it look like the rocket was pitched up relative to its exhaust angle in the last ~10 seconds before MECO to anyone else?
Didn't notice it, but it looks like the engine was stuttering in the end which looked really weird.
Post by: drzerg on 03/30/2017 11:17 pm
Post by: Kabloona on 03/30/2017 11:22 pm
T+2:43: 2nd Stage Separation
T+3:43: Fairing Separation
T+3:57: Recovery Vessels have AOS
I don't recall that final callout before or that the 1st Stage has a signal acquired by the Drone Ship and Tenders.
AOS of Fairing Recovery Signals?
The "recovery vessels have AOS" callout has been done many times before (if not for every ASDS mission; I don't recall). It's probably for acquisition of the F9 Stage 1 telemetry stream, not related to fairing recovery.
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/30/2017 11:25 pm
i saw a bright flash from the engines(?) at the t+00:07
The exhaust doesn't quite look symmetrical towards the end, either. Maybe one of the engines had a malfunction with gimballing? Either that or I'm reading too much into tea leaves. :P
Post by: Craig_VG on 03/30/2017 11:26 pm
Post by: rcoppola on 03/30/2017 11:28 pm
Post by: drzerg on 03/30/2017 11:29 pm
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/30/2017 11:30 pm
Elon is doing a media event soon!
Details please??
Post by: Lars-J on 03/30/2017 11:32 pm
i saw a bright flash from the engines(?) at the t+00:07
The exhaust doesn't quite look symmetrical towards the end, either. Maybe one of the engines had a malfunction with gimballing? Either that or I'm reading too much into tea leaves. :P
It looks perfectly symmetrical to me... Note that the parts of the octopus flame is obscured more by the exhaust trail, the daylight doesn't help either. Don't do too much tea leaf reading. ;)
Post by: punder on 03/30/2017 11:36 pm
I saw that. Wasn't sure if it was just the camera angle.Does it look like the rocket was pitched up relative to its exhaust angle in the last ~30 seconds of its flight to anyone else?
Me too, it kinda spooked me...
Post by: Skylab on 03/30/2017 11:37 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/30/2017 11:38 pm
i now checked exact frames on youtube video. its clear that 1 engine put some orange flame burst down
Chunk of ice falling off the stage into the exhaust. No big deal.
Post by: ugordan on 03/30/2017 11:41 pm
Either that or I'm reading too much into tea leaves. :P
You are reading too much into it, that's just trajectory shaping. Vehicles are known to pitch up noticeably once out of the atmosphere, look at the last Atlas V launch for example. F9 GTO missions are known for this sort of thing.
Post by: AC in NC on 03/30/2017 11:46 pm
Have I lost perspective on time or are we at just over 15 months from 1st landing to Reuse and Landing?
With AMOS-6 in the middle.
*** shivers ***
Just wow!!!
Post by: gospacex on 03/30/2017 11:55 pm
Post by: Orbiter on 03/30/2017 11:55 pm
Marcia Dunn: Will you refly this booster? Next flight of reuse booster.
Musk: Several reflights scheduled for later this year. Might fly as many as 6 reflights this year. FH two side boosters are being reflown. That will be interesting mission on FH... hopefully in good direction. This core will have historic value. Seeing if Cape might like to have it as something to remember the moment. Present it as gift to cape
Looking forward to a F9 in the KSCVC Rocket Garden then... maybe! Certainly would look cool next to the Redstone, Titan, Saturn IB, et cetera.
Post by: abaddon on 03/30/2017 11:57 pm
Post by: rpapo on 03/30/2017 11:59 pm
"Economics of reuse is not proven", nothing to see here, move along ;) ;)Puts on "Jim" hat: In all honesty, it hasn't been proven ... yet. A rocket has been reused, but we don't have any insight into just how much it cost to do that. Granted, it would cost more for the first time than it should in the long term, but we have no numbers yet on the economics of all this.
That said, people don't seem to make money betting against Elon Musk . . . unless they're betting against his notional timeframe for things.
Post by: meekGee on 03/31/2017 12:00 am
Irene Klotz: Do you have other costumers that weren't as brave as SES that are now signed up? What is life-limiting factor?
Musk: NASA has been supportive. Commercial, SES has been most supportive. Next thing is how to achieve rapid reuse without major hardware changeouts. Aspirations of zero hardware changes and 24hrs reflight.
And how many pages of useless argument whether the goal is "24 hours reflight" or "24 hours done with refurb"?
People assuming that you can't refly in 24 hours because other processes today take too long - a classic "it can't be done since it isn't currently done".
I guess if the stage can be ready to go in 24 hours, other processes will have to catch up so they DON'T remain the bottleneck.
And even if they don't reach the "aspiration" and it becomes 48 hours or even 72 - still enables 1 flight per day with a set of three boosters.
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/31/2017 12:00 am
Fairing recovered!?! Woah!
There is no way that just happened.
I was expecting the fairings not to make it on the first try.
Post by: CameronD on 03/31/2017 12:00 am
Marcia Dunn: Will you refly this booster? Next flight of reuse booster.
Musk: Several reflights scheduled for later this year. Might fly as many as 6 reflights this year. FH two side boosters are being reflown. That will be interesting mission on FH... hopefully in good direction. This core will have historic value. Seeing if Cape might like to have it as something to remember the moment. Present it as gift to cape
Looking forward to a F9 in the KSCVC Rocket Garden then... maybe! Certainly would look cool next to the Redstone, Titan, Saturn IB, et cetera.
But it would be the only rocket in the collection to have actually launched - and made it back. Technically, that would upstage the others don't you think? (pun intended)
I'm looking forward to a rocket boneyard somewhere.. where old boosters, flown too many times, go to die. :)
Post by: pstephens on 03/31/2017 12:00 am
Musk: Upper stage reuse is next.
Hit the 2 minute "like" throttle.
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/31/2017 12:03 am
Post by: cppetrie on 03/31/2017 12:08 am
Thought they had shelved 2nd stage reuse for F9. Looks like is back on the todo list.We only have what has been posted by CG, and that doesn't indicate reusable 2nd stage for F9 but just that it is next on the list of capabilities to develop to achieve their ultimate goal.
Post by: inonepiece on 03/31/2017 12:12 am
Elon's press conferences are not designed for 2 minute like throttles.Musk: Upper stage reuse is next.
Hit the 2 minute "like" throttle.
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/31/2017 12:12 am
Thought they had shelved 2nd stage reuse for F9. Looks like is back on the todo list.We only have what has been posted by CG, and that doesn't indicate reusable 2nd stage for F9 but just that it is next on the list of capabilities to develop to achieve their ultimate goal.
Some more context in Jeff Foust's tweet:
Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847599210513944577
Musk adds it might “fun to try a Hail Mary” and recover an upper stage.
Post by: AC in NC on 03/31/2017 12:15 am
Have I lost perspective on time or are we at just over 15 months from 1st landing to Reuse and Landing?Was it not April last year?
I was referring (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40544.0) to the Dec 21, 2015 LZ-1 1st Recovered Stage.
BR) 2015-12-21, Successful landing at LZ1[61]
BR) 2016-04-08, Successful landing at OCISLY [71]
Post by: CameronD on 03/31/2017 12:20 am
Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.
I'm a little surprised to hear they wouldn't 3D-Print it.. wouldn't that be cheaper??
http://3d-printing-titanium.com/
Post by: Kabloona on 03/31/2017 12:25 am
Quote
Brendan Bryne (NPR): Anything you're worried about?
Musk: Looked a telemtry up and down. It all looks really good. Eyeballing it, other things to address to replace TPS on grid fins and base heat shield and repaint where needed.
Yes, I noticed on the webcast that the grid fin on the right side was getting its TPS (almost?) entirely melted off and deposited on the camera lens near the end of the entry video. The grid fin/TPS appeared to be glowing as it ablated off. Extra crispy.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/31/2017 12:28 am
Probably no titanium 3D printer big enough. Anyway, large metal 3D printing is expensive, has inferior surface finish, and produces lower strength than a forging. Forging is better especially if you'll be making several copies (SpaceX will make at least 100 of them).Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.
I'm a little surprised to hear they wouldn't 3D-Print it.. wouldn't that be cheaper??
http://3d-printing-titanium.com/
Post by: CameronD on 03/31/2017 12:31 am
Probably no titanium 3D printer big enough. Anyway, large metal 3D printing is expensive, has inferior surface finish, and produces lower strength than a forging. Forging is better especially if you'll be making several copies (SpaceX will make at least 100 of them).Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.
I'm a little surprised to hear they wouldn't 3D-Print it.. wouldn't that be cheaper??
http://3d-printing-titanium.com/
Interesting info.. thanks for the explanation. :)
Post by: meekGee on 03/31/2017 12:39 am
Thought they had shelved 2nd stage reuse for F9. Looks like is back on the todo list.
There is little of free will in an Engineer.
Post by: toren on 03/31/2017 12:40 am
Post by: Lars-J on 03/31/2017 12:41 am
Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.
Yeah, he's not kidding... The grid fin looked ready to melt! :o (although that was likely just the outer layer)
EDIT: The stage must be re-entering at an angle to affect the grid fins so differently.
Post by: meekGee on 03/31/2017 12:49 am
From the updates thread:Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.
Yeah, he's not kidding... The grid fin looked ready to melt! :o (although that was likely just the outer layer)
EDIT: The stage must be re-entering at an angle to affect the grid fins so differently.
Yes - at an angle to the velocity vector
Post by: Kabloona on 03/31/2017 12:51 am
Quote
EDIT: The stage must be re-entering at an angle to affect the grid fins so differently.
Yes, we've seen that asymmetry on photos of recovered stages, where the white paint on the interstage above one of the grid fins has been blasted off by the TPS coming off the grid fin, but the white paint remains intact on the opposite side of the interstage.
Post by: CameronD on 03/31/2017 12:52 am
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/31/2017 12:53 am
From the updates thread:Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.
Yeah, he's not kidding... The grid fin looked ready to melt! :o (although that was likely just the outer layer)
EDIT: The stage must be re-entering at an angle to affect the grid fins so differently.
Yes - at an angle to the velocity vector
Indeed. As someone has calculated pretty well in other threads, an F9 stage has a fairly decent L/D ratio, given adequate attitude control to modulate angle of attack. With the use of grid fins, it's even better. Not only do they provide excellent control authority all the way from hypersonic to high subsonic flight regimes, they also contribute a good deal to the overall lift of the vehicle.
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 03/31/2017 12:59 am
has anyone an idea what Spx did to manage this landing...
Post by: Jcc on 03/31/2017 01:02 am
Thought they had shelved 2nd stage reuse for F9. Looks like is back on the todo list.We only have what has been posted by CG, and that doesn't indicate reusable 2nd stage for F9 but just that it is next on the list of capabilities to develop to achieve their ultimate goal.
Some more context in Jeff Foust's tweet:Quote from: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847599210513944577Musk adds it might “fun to try a Hail Mary” and recover an upper stage.
A possible mission with upper stage recovery testing could be the FH demo.
Post by: Lar on 03/31/2017 01:25 am
QuoteEDIT: The stage must be re-entering at an angle to affect the grid fins so differently.
Yes, we've seen that asymmetry on photos of recovered stages, where the white paint on the interstage above one of the grid fins has been blasted off by the TPS coming off the grid fin, but the white paint remains intact on the opposite side of the interstage.
Maybe they need to BBQ roll the stage for the high heat part of the descent?
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/31/2017 01:28 am
QuoteEDIT: The stage must be re-entering at an angle to affect the grid fins so differently.
Yes, we've seen that asymmetry on photos of recovered stages, where the white paint on the interstage above one of the grid fins has been blasted off by the TPS coming off the grid fin, but the white paint remains intact on the opposite side of the interstage.
Maybe they need to BBQ roll the stage for the high heat part of the descent?
Thaicom 8 (another GTO mission) was rock-steady throughout the descent. They seem to be very tightly roll-controlled during the whole launch and landing.
https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc
Post by: macpacheco on 03/31/2017 01:34 am
Can anyone offer a suggestion for the least laggy streaming site? I've tried SpaceX, Youtube, Ustream with varying results.I think youtube has a problem today.
My ISP... I actually work for them. I'm their last line of technical support. I watched the hosted webcast about 60 minutes after the launch started, and it was still very crappy. We have 2x10Gbps upstream links and all of them have several Gbps of spare bandwidth and we also host a google cache. I have 100Mbps symmetric bandwidth. Still it was so crappy to watch I almost resorted to downloading the video file and watching it offline (only possible after the webcast is finished).
Post by: Lar on 03/31/2017 01:36 am
I'm saying maybe they might want to change that... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.QuoteEDIT: The stage must be re-entering at an angle to affect the grid fins so differently.
Yes, we've seen that asymmetry on photos of recovered stages, where the white paint on the interstage above one of the grid fins has been blasted off by the TPS coming off the grid fin, but the white paint remains intact on the opposite side of the interstage.
Maybe they need to BBQ roll the stage for the high heat part of the descent?
Thaicom 8 (another GTO mission) was rock-steady throughout the descent. They seem to be very tightly roll-controlled during the whole launch and landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEz03Z8azc
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/31/2017 01:44 am
I'm saying maybe they might want to change that... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.
I would think you would want to avoid inducing roll for fear of centrifuging fluids in the grid fin hydraulics (leading to loss of control) or inducing slosh as well as centrifuging in the propellant tanks. That could cause issues with restart for the landing burn.
Post by: Lar on 03/31/2017 01:47 am
BBQ roll doesn't have to be FAST, so not a LOT of slosh probably? .... but yeah, since they did lose an early mission to slosh, titanium and no roll is probably cheaper.
I'm saying maybe they might want to change that... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.
I would think you would want to avoid inducing roll for fear of centrifuging fluids in the grid fin hydraulics (leading to loss of control) or inducing slosh as well as centrifuging in the propellant tanks. That could cause issues with restart for the landing burn.
Post by: Okie_Steve on 03/31/2017 01:55 am
Post by: Okie_Steve on 03/31/2017 02:03 am
Post by: jketch on 03/31/2017 02:07 am
Post by: Wolfram66 on 03/31/2017 02:24 am
Post by: Jdeshetler on 03/31/2017 02:28 am
Probably no titanium 3D printer big enough. Anyway, large metal 3D printing is expensive, has inferior surface finish, and produces lower strength than a forging. Forging is better especially if you'll be making several copies (SpaceX will make at least 100 of them).This Military History clip showed the SR-71's titanium frames being manufactured in 1960. It looks like it was a simple forged then bended.
Post by: manoweb on 03/31/2017 02:32 am
debut of Roomba
Is the above true? I have not seen evidence it was used
Post by: manoweb on 03/31/2017 02:33 am
Looked like the grid fin on the right was getting a good cooking before the feed cut.
To me it almost looked like they cut the feed on purpose when they saw it burn... is it possible? But then it still made it to the barge!!!
Post by: Jcc on 03/31/2017 02:53 am
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/31/2017 02:53 am
debut of Roomba
Is the above true? I have not seen evidence it was used
Roomba debut in "a few months" according to Elon at the presser.
Post by: ClayJar on 03/31/2017 02:56 am
debut of Roomba
Is the above true? I have not seen evidence it was used
I listened to the presser all the way through now, and it sounded like Elon indicated that it's really only needed in heavier seas. Apparently, when the water's in a kinder, gentler mood, the stages aren't likely to be jogging around the ASDS, so you don't have a pressing need to get them remotely locked down.
Post by: Clueless Idiot on 03/31/2017 03:11 am
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/31/2017 03:14 am
Otherwise, you're at a 100x cost disadvantage. Eventually 1000x.
Now watch all the other providers scramble.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/31/2017 03:15 am
I don't have the time to read through everything, so was this a one or three engine landing burn, how many three engine landings have they done so far isn't it just one?
I'm gonna give an answer... and then it's gonna be wrong. I believe I caught on the webcast that it was a single engine 30-sec landing burn. They didn't do a boost back burn, just a short entry and then landing burn.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/31/2017 03:18 am
debut of Roomba
Is the above true? I have not seen evidence it was used
I listened to the presser all the way through now, and it sounded like Elon indicated that it's really only needed in heavier seas. Apparently, when the water's in a kinder, gentler mood, the stages aren't likely to be jogging around the ASDS, so you don't have a pressing need to get them remotely locked down.
Yes and no. There's a risk to sending people onto the ASDS to tie down the legs and secure the booster. The roomba will allow that to happen remotely... in calm or stormy seas. Basically, in stormy seas, it's absolutely necessary to have. In calm seas, it's better to have it and secure the booster remotely to reduce risk to personnel even though it's not 100% needed.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/31/2017 03:18 am
I'm saying maybe they might want to change that... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.Maybe they need to BBQ roll the stage for the high heat part of the descent?
Thaicom 8 (another GTO mission) was rock-steady throughout the descent. They seem to be very tightly roll-controlled during the whole launch and landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEz03Z8azc
But... why? It works as intended. You are trying to solve something that is not a real problem. Besides, the grid fins are already being strengthened for block V.
Post by: MarsInMyLifetime on 03/31/2017 03:24 am
And I heard "just a few hundred feet off the deck of the drone ship" which implies the full-brakes, 3-engine suicide burn. Yet I counted about 21 seconds from announced start of burn until the blackout, which resets that distance some. Listen and see what you deduce:I don't have the time to read through everything, so was this a one or three engine landing burn, how many three engine landings have they done so far isn't it just one?
I'm gonna give an answer... and then it's gonna be wrong. I believe I caught on the webcast that it was a single engine 30-sec landing burn. They didn't do a boost back burn, just a short entry and then landing burn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8?t=1587
Post by: mme on 03/31/2017 05:36 am
That was not my interpretation. Rougher seas was the motivation for the Roomba. But I believe once they have it, they'll always use it. It will always be easier/faster than manually jacking, welding and chaining. And it will always be safer.debut of Roomba
Is the above true? I have not seen evidence it was used
I listened to the presser all the way through now, and it sounded like Elon indicated that it's really only needed in heavier seas. Apparently, when the water's in a kinder, gentler mood, the stages aren't likely to be jogging around the ASDS, so you don't have a pressing need to get them remotely locked down.
My $0.02
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/31/2017 06:09 am
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/31/2017 06:38 am
So at the presser, Elon talked about putting all the lessons of reusability into the 'BFR', as an eventual Falcon replacement. It sounded as though BFR and ITS are not the same thing. Which was news to me. Have I got this right?
The BFR or ITS booster is a part of the Interplanetary Transport System. Which also include the ITS Spaceship, ITS tanker and some sort of Martian propellant depot (Musk reply in the SES-10 presser).
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 07:50 am
So at the presser, Elon talked about putting all the lessons of reusability into the 'BFR', as an eventual Falcon replacement. It sounded as though BFR and ITS are not the same thing. Which was news to me. Have I got this right?
The BFR or ITS booster is a part of the Interplanetary Transport System. Which also include the ITS Spaceship, ITS tanker and some sort of Martian propellant depot (Musk reply in the SES-10 presser).
And, if it is indeed intended to be a replacement for F9, then presumably also some other upper stage variants optimized for orbital cargo delivery.
Post by: Semmel on 03/31/2017 08:19 am
Irene Klotz: Do you have other costumers that weren't as brave as SES that are now signed up? What is life-limiting factor?
Musk: NASA has been supportive. Commercial, SES has been most supportive. Next thing is how to achieve rapid reuse without major hardware changeouts. Aspirations of zero hardware changes and 24hrs reflight.
And how many pages of useless argument whether the goal is "24 hours reflight" or "24 hours done with refurb"?
People assuming that you can't refly in 24 hours because other processes today take too long - a classic "it can't be done since it isn't currently done".
I guess if the stage can be ready to go in 24 hours, other processes will have to catch up so they DON'T remain the bottleneck.
And even if they don't reach the "aspiration" and it becomes 48 hours or even 72 - still enables 1 flight per day with a set of three boosters.
What a fantastic day. And lets hope the next goal of 24h turnaround will not take 15 years. The scepticism of 24h relaunch comes from the fact that its outside SpaceXs sphere of influence. For their satellite constellation, I can believe its possible because they supply the rocket as well as the payload. So there they have control over the entire process and it might be possible for them to pull it off. Would be a big accomplishment if they do!
With an external customer, the process to allow for a 24h turnaround must also apply to the customer. And this is less obvious to accept.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/31/2017 08:19 am
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 10:15 am
Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
Post by: AC in NC on 03/31/2017 10:22 am
Aspirations of zero hardware changes and 24hrs reflight.
And lets hope the next goal of 24h turnaround will not take 15 years.
Chris' snippet from the Press Conference buried the lede. The youtube vid link below is cued up to the exact statement.
Press Conference cued to Elon's Statement on 24hr Reflight Target Timeframe (https://tinyurl.com/kkx77g9)
Roughly: "Our aspirations will be zero hardware changes. Reflight in 24h. The only thing that changes is you reload propellent. We might get there by the end of this year but if not this year I'm confident we'll get there next year."
Post by: Hauerg on 03/31/2017 10:35 am
...
What a fantastic day. And lets hope the next goal of 24h turnaround will not take 15 years. ...
15 years from the creation of the company !!!
It did NOT take them long, quite on the contrary.
Look what they have done in the 10 years since receiving their NASA contract for F9/Dragon.
Then check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.
Post by: manoweb on 03/31/2017 10:41 am
Then check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.
They also made Vega
Post by: AncientU on 03/31/2017 10:48 am
Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
Development cost is likely already retired (or near retired) from corporate reinvestment of all revenue streams.
Bulk of future savings will also be reinvested.
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 10:50 am
Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
Development cost is likely already retired (or near retired) from corporate reinvestment of all revenue streams.
Bulk of future savings will also be reinvested.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting things, but I was thinking more along the lines of how many launches before they have made more money thanks to reuse than they would have made at that point if they hadn't bothered with it at all.
Post by: kevinof on 03/31/2017 10:55 am
By re-using S1's they increase their margins, free up production and can get a customers payload into orbit very quickly. Very good position to be in.
Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
Post by: uhuznaa on 03/31/2017 11:05 am
So at the presser, Elon talked about putting all the lessons of reusability into the 'BFR', as an eventual Falcon replacement. It sounded as though BFR and ITS are not the same thing. Which was news to me. Have I got this right?
The BFR or ITS booster is a part of the Interplanetary Transport System. Which also include the ITS Spaceship, ITS tanker and some sort of Martian propellant depot (Musk reply in the SES-10 presser).
The ITS booster is much too big to serve as a Falcon or even Falcon Heavy replacement. Also Musk calls the ITS just ITS and not BFR.
I have always thought they will sooner or later downscale the ITS concept for a launcher in a more pedestrian payload class with full reusability for both stages. That's the only way to really get down launch costs.
What they will need is a second stage integrated with a payload adapter and fairing that ejects the payload, closes the fairing again and returns to the launch site in one piece. Falcon is too small to do that and ITS is much too large to use it for launching satellites.
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 11:05 am
Don't see why SX would have to give large discounts. If they can (re)launch reliably and they are still the cheapest gig in town and they have spare capacity then they are in a great position.
By re-using S1's they increase their margins, free up production and can get a customers payload into orbit very quickly. Very good position to be in.Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
I agree with this, and have mentioned it before. If others can launch a rocket for $100m, why should SpaceX launch it for less than say $90m, even if it only costs them $20m. Just rake in the $70m profit and invest it in developing ITS.
Post by: Semmel on 03/31/2017 11:09 am
Roughly: "Our aspirations will be zero hardware changes. Reflight in 24h. The only thing that changes is you reload propellent. We might get there by the end of this year but if not this year I'm confident we'll get there next year."
Ohh wow, thank you! But lets see. SpaceX has a fantastic pace, but I remain skeptical when it comes to timelines voiced by Elon. Factoring in the Elon dilation factor, its some time in 2019. But doesnt really matter, the feat alone would be most impressive!
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/31/2017 11:26 am
Post by: AncientU on 03/31/2017 11:33 am
Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
Development cost is likely already retired (or near retired) from corporate reinvestment of all revenue streams.
Bulk of future savings will also be reinvested.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting things, but I was thinking more along the lines of how many launches before they have made more money thanks to reuse than they would have made at that point if they hadn't bothered with it at all.
I understand your viewpoint and accounting. Nothing to argue with there.
But it is different than having a billion dollar loan that they have to pay back...
Can also look at it as all investment (R&D) toward the BFR... savings could be a billion dollars per launch, compared with the competition out there.
It actually isn't about the price tag, it is about the capability to go BIG, beyond LEO.
Post by: Jcc on 03/31/2017 11:34 am
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
Not yet. They recently showed they are open to change with automated FTS, saving the effort of about 90 people every launch, and are looking to "drive every inefficiency out of the system".
Post by: Jarnis on 03/31/2017 11:56 am
Roughly: "Our aspirations will be zero hardware changes. Reflight in 24h. The only thing that changes is you reload propellent. We might get there by the end of this year but if not this year I'm confident we'll get there next year."
Ohh wow, thank you! But lets see. SpaceX has a fantastic pace, but I remain skeptical when it comes to timelines voiced by Elon. Factoring in the Elon dilation factor, its some time in 2019. But doesnt really matter, the feat alone would be most impressive!
Elon year is over 600 days. That Martian calendar....
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/31/2017 11:59 am
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
Not yet. They recently showed they are open to change with automated FTS, saving the effort of about 90 people every launch, and are looking to "drive every inefficiency out of the system".
I agree that the Eastern Range isn't here yet to support that but will be in the coming years. And you also need a catalogue of inventory waiting to launch to achieve that, too.
Another thing not mentioned last night but gearing toward reusability at a rapid pace is that Core #1021 from last night only took them four months to refurb and process -- even though it was nearly a year between launches. That in itself is a good mark to hit on your first try at reuse when you're being super extra inspect-y on the booster to learn about its condition after use.
Post by: rpapo on 03/31/2017 12:03 pm
Another thing not mentioned last night but gearing toward reusability at a rapid pace is that Core #1021 from last night only took them four months to refurb and process -- even though it was nearly a year between launches. That in itself is a good mark to hit on your first try at reuse when you're being super extra inspect-y on the booster to learn about its condition after use.Combine that with what was said in the rumor mill about replacing many of the welds in the Octaweb with bolted joints, and you begin to wonder just how much difficulty they had in doing those inspections and the associated parts replacements.
Post by: AC in NC on 03/31/2017 12:51 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
It is not moot. For strategic reasons.
They aren't going to have great demand for 24hr reflight even if they can do it and the range and processing supports it. But for strategic reasons, I suggest that it is very important for SpaceX to achieve 24hr reflight capability (regardless of whether customers and range can deal with that) because they need to understand 24hr reflight in order to achieve 1hr reflight for ITS which Elon also discusses in this cued up link to the press conference. (https://tinyurl.com/meyrl5l)
edit to add:
And with more practical near-term consequence, it means (again regardless of whether it is used) SpaceX has eliminated all but 24 hours of refurbishment expense.
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/31/2017 01:15 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
If SpaceX could launch every 24 hours, they would be able to many launches between other vehicle's use of the range, not moot at all. Weather can be a problem, but if a launch can go off on every decent weather day, that is a big increase in launches. 24 hour preflight does not mean they can do 365 launches a year, but if they get it figured out, they could do many more than possible today.
Matthew
Post by: AncientU on 03/31/2017 01:15 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
It is not moot. For strategic reasons.
They aren't going to have great demand for 24hr reflight even if they can do it and the range and processing supports it. But for strategic reasons, I suggest that it is very important for SpaceX to achieve 24hr reflight capability (regardless of whether customers and range can deal with that) because they need to understand 24hr reflight in order to achieve 1hr reflight for ITS which Elon also discusses in this cued up link to the press conference. (https://tinyurl.com/meyrl5l)
Same can be said about a reusable rocket or FH payload capability or ITS -- they are building for a goal other than the launch market of the last couple decades. They're all about the next couple... strategic reasons like AC said.
Post by: Jet Black on 03/31/2017 01:17 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
I don't think so. It means they only have to have staff working on it for a day, rather than for months. That alone would probably save tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per launch.
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 01:24 pm
Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible.
I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.
So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/31/2017 01:30 pm
Post by: AC in NC on 03/31/2017 01:34 pm
Same can be said about a reusable rocket or FH payload capability or ITS -- they are building for a goal other than the launch market of the last couple decades. They're all about the next couple... strategic reasons like AC said.
It really is somewhat difficult to adjust to adjust to such aggressive goals that aren't necessarily serving the current market but are serving to prove out interrelated aspects of such grander goals.
One of the best examples of this is the retropropulsive 1st stage recovery. It's hard to imagine that it's not the end goal in and of itself. But if I recall correctly it has been stated that the earth-based retropropulsive landing has proven out a very larger portion of what is required to land on Mars.
Another is certainly the "Tourist Trip" round the moon particularly with regards to BEO mission management.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/31/2017 01:53 pm
Same can be said about a reusable rocket or FH payload capability or ITS -- they are building for a goal other than the launch market of the last couple decades. They're all about the next couple... strategic reasons like AC said.
It really is somewhat difficult to adjust to adjust to such aggressive goals that aren't necessarily serving the current market but are serving to prove out interrelated aspects of such grander goals.
One of the best examples of this is the retropropulsive 1st stage recovery. It's hard to imagine that it's not the end goal in and of itself. But if I recall correctly it has been stated that the earth-based retropropulsive landing has proven out a very larger portion of what is required to land on Mars.
Another is certainly the "Tourist Trip" round the moon particularly with regards to BEO mission management.
I think another big adjustment is that ITS is too big for current launch market. Right now we have one launch one satellite. (with exception of arianne). I think next big wave is 10-100 satellites per launch. The market will have to adjust because it will be incredibly cheaper.
Post by: dante2308 on 03/31/2017 01:56 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
It is not moot. For strategic reasons.
They aren't going to have great demand for 24hr reflight even if they can do it and the range and processing supports it. But for strategic reasons, I suggest that it is very important for SpaceX to achieve 24hr reflight capability (regardless of whether customers and range can deal with that) because they need to understand 24hr reflight in order to achieve 1hr reflight for ITS which Elon also discusses in this cued up link to the press conference. (https://tinyurl.com/meyrl5l)
edit to add:
And with more practical near-term consequence, it means (again regardless of whether it is used) SpaceX has eliminated all but 24 hours of refurbishment expense.
For a sustained launch rate, it's more moot because they can't build second stages at a rate of one a day in the near future. As for demand, they're the ones trying to launch thousands of satellites in the first place so at <$30m per launch, I'm sure the launch market can at least support one a week at least.
Neither factor really matters because relaunching within 24 hours doesn't mean launching 365 days a year, at least at first it means not slipping your schedule because of a delay.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/31/2017 02:23 pm
So a new page has been turned with a new phrase firmly ensconced in my mind "SpaceX=Confidence"
Post by: stcks on 03/31/2017 02:45 pm
Post by: laszlo on 03/31/2017 03:05 pm
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.
Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible.
I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.
So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
Probably not. It only took Burt Rutan a few years to catch up with the high altitude X-15 flights due to the technological advancements and the fact that it's always easeir when someone else has gone first. SpaceX has now sort of caught up with the second flight of the Space Shuttle (sort of because while SpaceX did it cheaper, the Shuttle reused more of the vehicle and was manned). Assuming they can turn the technological feat into a profit-making enterprise (the Shuttle couldn't), there's no reason that a competitor couldn't learn from SpaceX's experiences, leverage emergent technologies and join or beat them in the game.
Even aggressive IP protection can only delay the inevitable (who owns the patent on barge landings?), not stop progress. Once the tech is demonstrated, the revenue stream comes down to business practices. Building a loyal customer base and keeping them happy will be more important than who reused what first.
Post by: Greg Hullender on 03/31/2017 03:12 pm
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/31/2017 03:15 pm
I look forward to the day when they launch a used booster and I'm not holding my breath all the way to MECO.
I always hold my breath until the second stage lights up. Doesn't matter if it is a new or re-used flight. I'm always expecting something to go wrong. Space is hard.
Post by: cscott on 03/31/2017 03:20 pm
Don't see why SX would have to give large discounts. If they can (re)launch reliably and they are still the cheapest gig in town and they have spare capacity then they are in a great position.
They need to offer large discounts to drive up demand. Without demand, they don't fly often enough and fixed costs start catching up with them.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/31/2017 03:23 pm
Don't see why SX would have to give large discounts. If they can (re)launch reliably and they are still the cheapest gig in town and they have spare capacity then they are in a great position.
They need to offer large discounts to drive up demand. Without demand, they don't fly often enough and fixed costs start catching up with them.
I'd disagree. It looks like CommX will provide enough demand even without an increase in the rest of the market. I still think that demand will come, but I don't expect the cost to lower dramatically in the near term (next 5-7 years).
Post by: Jarnis on 03/31/2017 03:27 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 03/31/2017 03:35 pm
Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
Development cost is likely already retired (or near retired) from corporate reinvestment of all revenue streams.
Bulk of future savings will also be reinvested.
Exactly. That $1 billion is is not something that have to pay off now - no, much or all of that is already paid for as SpaceX has continued to invest earnings into this development.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/31/2017 03:38 pm
But a billion would be handy to build ITS. Why leave money on the table?Some notes I took from the presser.
Fairings cost $6M each.
$1B development spent on reuse. Three quarters of the cost to reduce by an order of a magnitude. Thus for $62M expendable, that gives (0.25 + 0.75*0.1)*62 = $20.15M reusable cost.
So about 25 launches to recover the $1B development costs then based on that calculation. Presuming you can keep charging $62m per launch. Which might be difficult, if customers are insisting on reuse discounts.
Development cost is likely already retired (or near retired) from corporate reinvestment of all revenue streams.
Bulk of future savings will also be reinvested.
Exactly. That $1 billion is is not something that have to pay off now - no, much or all of that is already paid for as SpaceX has continued to invest earnings into this development.
Post by: abaddon on 03/31/2017 03:48 pm
But a billion would be handy to build ITS. Why leave money on the table?In fact, Elon specifically said that there is a billion dollars of investment to recoup. I agree with Lars that it isn't "required" to pay off loans/debts, but it is clear SpaceX intends to make that money back and reinvest it.
But it is also clear SpaceX wants to lower the cost of space access. This seems like a reasonable middle ground of making some money back before dropping price.
Post by: meekGee on 03/31/2017 04:05 pm
Exactly.Irene Klotz: Do you have other costumers that weren't as brave as SES that are now signed up? What is life-limiting factor?
Musk: NASA has been supportive. Commercial, SES has been most supportive. Next thing is how to achieve rapid reuse without major hardware changeouts. Aspirations of zero hardware changes and 24hrs reflight.
And how many pages of useless argument whether the goal is "24 hours reflight" or "24 hours done with refurb"?
People assuming that you can't refly in 24 hours because other processes today take too long - a classic "it can't be done since it isn't currently done".
I guess if the stage can be ready to go in 24 hours, other processes will have to catch up so they DON'T remain the bottleneck.
And even if they don't reach the "aspiration" and it becomes 48 hours or even 72 - still enables 1 flight per day with a set of three boosters.
What a fantastic day. And lets hope the next goal of 24h turnaround will not take 15 years. The scepticism of 24h relaunch comes from the fact that its outside SpaceXs sphere of influence. For their satellite constellation, I can believe its possible because they supply the rocket as well as the payload. So there they have control over the entire process and it might be possible for them to pull it off. Would be a big accomplishment if they do!
With an external customer, the process to allow for a 24h turnaround must also apply to the customer. And this is less obvious to accept.
Nobody will launch regular comsats every 24 hours.
The payload has to be "repeatable" - either a series of identical satellites, or fuel tankers or "just people" in reusable vehicles.
But the whole point of change is that the environment changes too.
LEO comsats were a bust 20 years ago, but will be yuge this time around, because of smartphones and self driving cars.
Smartphones were a bust for many years until the internet made them happen.
Etc.
Post by: CW on 03/31/2017 04:10 pm
Post by: VIY on 03/31/2017 04:20 pm
I look forward to the day when they launch a used booster and I'm not holding my breath all the way to MECO.
I always hold my breath until the second stage lights up. Doesn't matter if it is a new or re-used flight. I'm always expecting something to go wrong. Space is hard.
That's speaks a lot. You are now much more confident of the second stage! In fact, the statistics shows that I stage never let them down, so far. Only one partial failure with an engine out, but was able to recover admirably and the main mission was a success. It appears that I stage is the most robust part of F9. All other failures were second-stage related. The second stage is much more refined and has less tolerance, and it burns 3-4 times longer.
Another thing that is striking about SX is their very short time from development to routine operations - few months, rather than years! Examples: now they have routine landings, routine supercooled fuel, and will shortly have routine refligths, too. This makes them very difficult to follow and compete with.
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 04:24 pm
Don't see why SX would have to give large discounts. If they can (re)launch reliably and they are still the cheapest gig in town and they have spare capacity then they are in a great position.
They need to offer large discounts to drive up demand. Without demand, they don't fly often enough and fixed costs start catching up with them.
They have 70+ launches on their manifest. They can't even service their current demand at the moment. I'd say they can retain current price levels through the 70 remaining existing launches. That's 70 x $30m profit per reusable launch = a cool $2Bn profit over the next 2-3 years.
And by the time they have cleared that manifest they will likely have more than 70 new launches on the books, even at, or very close to, current prices.
At that point they can decide to start dropping prices, if it makes sense. But otherwise milk it for as long as they can, would be my advice.
Post by: Basto on 03/31/2017 04:38 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
No. The only way two Falcons can launch on the same day is because there are two pads (39A and 40). If there weren't, the AFTS becomes a moot point to this. It's the combination of AFTS AND two pads that make two launches in same day possible for Falcon 9.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42567.0
I believe this thread says otherwise. I think the major hurdle is getting the rocket cleaned, mated to second stage, mated to the TEL, static fired, payload integrated. All within 24 hours.
Musk sets bold goals, not saying 24 hours is impossible. But even if the best they could pull off is 2 weeks it would be quite the accomplishment.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/31/2017 04:46 pm
- Ed Kyle
Post by: CW on 03/31/2017 04:46 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
No. The only way two Falcons can launch on the same day is because there are two pads (39A and 40). If there weren't, the AFTS becomes a moot point to this. It's the combination of AFTS AND two pads that make two launches in same day possible for Falcon 9.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42567.0
I believe this thread says otherwise. I think the major hurdle is getting the rocket cleaned, mated to second stage, mated to the TEL, static fired, payload integrated. All within 24 hours.
Musk sets bold goals, not saying 24 hours is impossible. But even if the best they could pull off is 2 weeks it would be quite the accomplishment.
I think the 24h scenario hinges on the amount of auto-diagnostics installed in the booster etc. I imagine it to be best if the rocket can self-diagnose something like, "Geez my back hurts" or "One of my fire-holes feels weird" and so on.
;D
Post by: Comga on 03/31/2017 04:47 pm
Another thing not mentioned last night but gearing toward reusability at a rapid pace is that Core #1021 from last night only took them four months to refurb and process -- even though it was nearly a year between launches. That in itself is a good mark to hit on your first try at reuse when you're being super extra inspect-y on the booster to learn about its condition after use.
In the presser (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62i6m1/recap_of_the_elon_musk_and_martin_halliwell_press/dfmw95b/) Musk referred to the upcoming revision saying "block 5 is more like version 2.5 of Falcon 9".
We have it elsewhere that this rocket was some one-off hybrid version 2.1/2/3, some Block 1 methods used to upgrade a Block 2 subsystem to Block 3. A "version 2.5" designed for reusability should, we have been told, cut this already impressive time.
People are going on and on about the barriers to Musk's stated goal of 24 hr turn around but the ability to have the first stage ready that fast is a statement about minimization of inspections and refurbishment work and will have the primary impact of reducing their costs.
Post by: ATPTourFan on 03/31/2017 04:50 pm
Post by: garidan on 03/31/2017 04:53 pm
It looks to lose pieces ...
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/31/2017 04:55 pm
What about the fin getting really hot ?It is aluminum coated with ablatives. Future version will use higher temperature metal.
It looks to lose pieces ...
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Brovane on 03/31/2017 05:03 pm
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.
Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible.
I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.
So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
SpaceX will not have a monopoly as long as Blue Origins is in the Orbital launch Market. With Bezo's money, Blue Origins could just write off the entire development cost as money well spent.
Post by: luinil on 03/31/2017 05:05 pm
Then check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.
They also made Vega
And the Epsilon
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/31/2017 05:11 pm
What about the fin getting really hot ?
It looks to lose pieces ...
This was specifically picked up at the presser. In future they will be from forged Ti.
Post by: Norm38 on 03/31/2017 05:16 pm
Post by: Lar on 03/31/2017 05:18 pm
If Elon decides to go for the Hail Mary 2nd stage recovery from presser, what sort of mission would likely provide best chance. Circular LEO or ellipse GTO?I'm not totally clear how they would do it at all without fitting some kind of kit to give it legs and a second engine etc. (as we've discussed in many many threads) unless he means just seeing if they can splash it down gently (or land ON the bell which then gets squished)
... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.
But... why? It works as intended. You are trying to solve something that is not a real problem. Besides, the grid fins are already being strengthened for block V.
Because even with titanium fins, if there is uneven heating, you have to handle higher heat loads than if you BBQ roll.
This is a minor point but I would not be surprised if they're thinking about it. OR if they already considered it and decided it's not worth the bother. OR decided that they are going to asymmetrically beef up their thermal protection.... who knows.
We'll find out.
Post by: kevinof on 03/31/2017 05:18 pm
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.
Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible.
I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.
So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
SpaceX will not have a monopoly as long as Blue Origins is in the Orbital launch Market. With Bezo's money, Blue Origins could just write off the entire development cost as money well spent.
Post by: A12 on 03/31/2017 05:21 pm
Then check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.
They also made Vega
And the Epsilon
For what matters, I believe Vega development began in 1998, so, it took more than 10 years for the first flight.
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 03/31/2017 05:38 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/31/2017 05:39 pm
https://twitter.com/laur_ly/status/847861984456527873 (https://twitter.com/laur_ly/status/847861984456527873)
Post by: meekGee on 03/31/2017 05:45 pm
Nice flight.Ultimately with reliability being equal, economics will be the decider...
Makes me think, what the people in ULA are thinking about their "safe" approach to Vulcan reusability.
... And schedule.
"Safe" approach ironically, is years away. It might very well end up a "Virgin Galactic" situation.
By the time SMART reuse becomes real, everyone will have moved on already.
Post by: cscott on 03/31/2017 05:55 pm
Do we have any idea as to what was changed out or refurbished, percentage of changes, and the associated costs with those parts and labour, for this launch ??...Four months. According to Elon, "the core airframe remained the same, the engines remained the same, but any auxillary components that might be slightly questionable we changed out."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62i6m1/recap_of_the_elon_musk_and_martin_halliwell_press/dfmw95b/
Post by: clegg78 on 03/31/2017 05:59 pm
Edit: CScott answered that question immediately before :)
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 03/31/2017 06:05 pm
Nice flight.Ultimately with reliability being equal, economics will be the decider...
Makes me think, what the people in ULA are thinking about their "safe" approach to Vulcan reusability.
... And schedule.
"Safe" approach ironically, is years away. It might very well end up a "Virgin Galactic" situation.
By the time SMART reuse becomes real, everyone will have moved on already.
Tory Bruno pretty much just repeated the party line over on r/spaceX (https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/62hin7/how_will_todays_success_influence_other/dfnqbpc/) when asked about how yesterday's success influences other commercial launch providers:
Quote from: /u/ToryBruno
Without dragging you through the math again...
Generally speaking:
1. We all want a solution that recovers as much valuable hardware as possible
2. Adds as little costs (logistics, refurb, etc) as possible
3. Can be done on as many missions as practical
4. Maximize the number of reuses
Full booster recovery gets the whole booster back (all the FS hardware). So it maximizes the value of hardware getting reused. However, it has a substantial performance hit if recovered down range, bigger for returns to origin. So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit, so that enough fuel is left over to fly home with (the other portion of missions are still expendable). The booster must also experience hypersonic reentry which will affect refurbishment costs and the ultimate number of reuses.
An autonomous, powered engine flyback brings back less hardware value, but the engines are most of the cost of a booster. This requires less propellant, so it can be done more often. It also could eliminate hypersonic exposure if the engine is encapsulated. Logistics are minimal (no ship, etc)
SMART reuse is similar to autonomous flyback, but has essentially no performance hit, so it can be done every time. Its reentry shield also eliminates the hypersonics issue.
So, its a trade between getting everything back, but at higher logistics and refurb costs with fewer opportunities
VS
Getting some of the hardware back more often with lower costs.
We will all find out the answer after we try the different approaches.
Post by: mme on 03/31/2017 06:18 pm
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will. Eventually. Maybe Skylon gets funded.
...
So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.
Post by: punder on 03/31/2017 06:21 pm
Quote from: /u/ToryBruno
Without dragging you through the math again...
Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...
Post by: Bargemanos on 03/31/2017 06:24 pm
Well they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...What about the fin getting really hot ?It is aluminum coated with ablatives. Future version will use higher temperature metal.
It looks to lose pieces ...
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Lars-J on 03/31/2017 06:30 pm
Well they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...What about the fin getting really hot ?It is aluminum coated with ablatives. Future version will use higher temperature metal.
It looks to lose pieces ...
- Ed Kyle
You holding your breath is not a sufficient reason for them to "have to" do anything. ;) It may look bad, but the structure holds up pretty well. This is not the first flight where this fire/glow has been seen on grid fins.
Post by: Jarnis on 03/31/2017 06:31 pm
Quote from: /u/ToryBrunoWithout dragging you through the math again...
Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...
He lives in a world where you bolt on extra SRBs at a substantial cost based on mission needs.
SpaceX and even more so, Blue Origin has moved on to a world where you ensure your rocket has enough performance so that any spent on first stage recovery doesn't really matter - the payload still got where it needed to go and it did so at a much lower cost.
Once your rocket is "overkill" for almost all possible payloads, who cares how much of that you left to the table if the hardware costs of your launch just got slashed in half?
Post by: garidan on 03/31/2017 06:32 pm
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will. Eventually. Maybe Skylon gets funded.
...
So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.
Knowing something can be done doesn't mean you can do it too.
There are things money cannot buy.
Japan lean system in automotive, their "total quality" approach, took years and a lot of retries to get done.
It's a system plus a culture to change.
You cannot buy another Elon Musk to steer a whole company toward a "vision"
Post by: punder on 03/31/2017 06:33 pm
Well they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...What about the fin getting really hot ?It is aluminum coated with ablatives. Future version will use higher temperature metal.
It looks to lose pieces ...
- Ed Kyle
You holding your breath is not a sufficient reason for them to "have to" do anything. ;) It may look bad, but the structure holds up pretty well. This is not the first flight where this fire/glow has been seen on grid fins.
Well, Elon did say in the presser they were going to titanium fins.
Post by: mme on 03/31/2017 06:40 pm
1. Blue Origin exists, is backed by billionaire Jeff Bezos and is building a rocket factory at KSC.So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will. Eventually. Maybe Skylon gets funded.
...
So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.
Knowing something can be done doesn't mean you can do it too.
There are things money cannot buy.
Japan lean system in automotive, their "total quality" approach, took years and a lot of retries to get done.
It's a system plus a culture to change.
You cannot buy another Elon Musk to steer a whole company toward a "vision"
2. Once something is known to be possible and profitable there are always fast followers. As a non-business example, read up on the history of the 4 minute mile.
I am a huge fan of SpaceX and Elon Musk but they are mere mortals, others will follow. And that is a good thing.
Post by: clegg78 on 03/31/2017 06:42 pm
I think the future will be BO and SpaceX eclipsing ULA, while ULA will keep its friends in the DoD and NRO for a while to come.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/31/2017 06:49 pm
Quote from: /u/ToryBrunoWithout dragging you through the math again...
Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...
He lives in a world where you bolt on extra SRBs at a substantial cost based on mission needs.
SpaceX and even more so, Blue Origin has moved on to a world where you ensure your rocket has enough performance so that any spent on first stage recovery doesn't really matter - the payload still got where it needed to go and it did so at a much lower cost.
Once your rocket is "overkill" for almost all possible payloads, who cares how much of that you left to the table if the hardware costs of your launch just got slashed in half?
Bingo... With Atlas V, you would need to bolt on 1-2 extra SRBs to get the margin to recover the entire booster. It is a completely different philosophy. One that was perfect for the early EELV projections, but not when you have a competitor who is happy and able to fly with lots of performance margin.
Post by: mme on 03/31/2017 06:50 pm
Some folks have commented that they were really nervous during the landing an I must say I felt the opposite... I quietly sat there smiling at the screen watching the grid-fins doing their thing, one taking a little heat... I felt very confident that SpaceX had done their due diligence on the refurbishment with the knowledge gained. The video drop-out caused an anxious moment but a second later a beautiful sight appeared followed by my clenched fist and my exclamation "yes"!I think they've stopped calling it an "experimental" landing. Now it's just landing. (I could be wrong. Too busy to recheck videos. But I will watch them again. :) )
So a new page has been turned with a new phrase firmly ensconced in my mind "SpaceX=Confidence"
Post by: deruch on 03/31/2017 07:09 pm
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.Now that AFTS is operational they can. I recommend reading (or re-reading) NSF's article on USAF plans to support up to 48 launches per year from Cape Canaveral (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/air-force-reveals-48-launches-year-cape/):
Quote
Moreover, Brig. Gen. Monteith stated that this new AFTS combined with two operational SpaceX pads at Kennedy and the CCAFS will allow the company to launch two Falcon 9 rockets – one from 39A and one from SLC-40 – within 16 to 18 hours of each other.
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.
“Now if we did that and we had an Atlas V or a Delta IV launch, within 36 hours we could do three launches. So that’s how we’re going to get to 48 launches a year. It’s a great problem to have.” (bold added)
Post by: cscott on 03/31/2017 07:12 pm
I think of all the companies, BO is taking the most pragmatic, well funded, and deliberate path. They are learning from SpaceX's mistakes letting Elon forge the path and spend the capital finding the way forward on reusable. Then improving on that."Well funded"? Hrm. If you're a billionaire who doesn't need a ROI maybe.
I think the future will be BO and SpaceX eclipsing ULA, while ULA will keep its friends in the DoD and NRO for a while to come.
SpaceX had hands-down the best business model, which got them the funding to get to recovery w/o bleeding funds from Elon's much-more-limited pockets. Antares/Cygnus would have been the better "fast followers", if they'd managed to invest the same NASA CRS boot-strapping into a competitive rocket. BO is following everything but the business model of SpaceX, but I think it's the business model which has been most impressive and which gives confidence that further innovation is possible.
Post by: abaddon on 03/31/2017 07:15 pm
Quote
So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
Post by: manoweb on 03/31/2017 07:24 pm
Quote from: /u/ToryBrunoWithout dragging you through the math again...
[...]It also could eliminate hypersonic exposure if the engine is encapsulated. Logistics are minimal (no ship, etc)
No ship but you need helicopters big enough to catch the thing and have enough fuel to take it back... Is it really cheaper? Maybe the helicopter will need to be re-fueled in flight or taken out with a ship for the most demanding missions?
In the case of SES-10, we have the barge and two ships, but I think it's still in the "experimental" phase, hopefully in the future human presence out at sea will be reduced.
Post by: Basto on 03/31/2017 07:25 pm
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:QuoteSo it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
He may be referring to the fact that the booster that was reused was originally flown on a CRS mission.
It really comes down to damage control if you ask me. Would love to see SpaceX reuse one of the prior GTO birds to take that away from him.
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 03/31/2017 07:30 pm
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:QuoteSo it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
He may be referring to the fact that the booster that was reused was originally flown on a CRS mission.
It really comes down to damage control if you ask me. Would love to see SpaceX reuse one of the prior GTO birds to take that away from him.
Thaicom 8 (GTO iirc) is going to be a side booster on FH.
Post by: JasonAW3 on 03/31/2017 07:38 pm
Well, Elon did say in the presser they were going to titanium fins.
If they use the same grade of titanium that the SR-71 used, the grid fins will just get stronger with each landin that they're attached to the stage.
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/31/2017 07:40 pm
I think they've stopped calling it an "experimental" landing. Now it's just landing. (I could be wrong. Too busy to recheck videos. But I will watch them again. :) )
Up until JCSat 16 in August 2016, SpaceX called the landings "experimental". However, starting with the first Iridium-NEXT mission last January, SpaceX decided to remove the word "experimental" since the success rate of the landings was increasing and they were becoming a routine procedure.
Post by: Lar on 03/31/2017 07:46 pm
But I think the numbers are already staring him in the face, he just can't say that out loud. SpaceX optimized for cost from the get go and has lots of margin to play with. ULA optimizes for performance so they don't have the margins. And they don't have the funding from B/L to play catchup fast. Vulcan is the best they can do.
Jeff Bezos congratulations were ... well I didn't find any yet... maybe you did... But Amazon is a master at Fast-Follower. You can be sure the Blue team are studying every single scrap of publicly available data and figuring out how to do it better faster and cheaper. Blue is what should keep Elon up at night, not ULA.
But this is almost all offtopic for a mission specific thread. Not sure which thread to move it to.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/31/2017 08:29 pm
Blue is what should keep Elon up at night, not ULA.
Maybe that why elon is thinking S2 reuse. Faster than ITS for full reuse to compete with blue.
Post by: darkenfast on 03/31/2017 08:31 pm
If your company or nation is shackled to launchers that were never designed for re-use, you are swimming in shark-infested waters with a cinder block tied to your ankle.
ULA didn't start talking about engine re-use until SpaceX convinced them that they better be seen to be doing something in that area.
Arianespace didn't start talking about re-use of engines on their new Ariane until SpaceX convinced them of the same thing.
One man convinced a bunch of other people to take risks, work their butts off and CHANGE what's "normal". That is a big accomplishment.
Post by: S.Paulissen on 03/31/2017 08:43 pm
Tory is a class act. His congrats to SpaceX are what we want to see from rival execs (and Dr. Sowers was also gracious)...
But I think the numbers are already staring him in the face, he just can't say that out loud. SpaceX optimized for cost from the get go and has lots of margin to play with. ULA optimizes for performance so they don't have the margins. And they don't have the funding from B/L to play catchup fast. Vulcan is the best they can do.
Jeff Bezos congratulations were ... well I didn't find any yet... maybe you did... But Amazon is a master at Fast-Follower. You can be sure the Blue team are studying every single scrap of publicly available data and figuring out how to do it better faster and cheaper. Blue is what should keep Elon up at night, not ULA.
But this is almost all offtopic for a mission specific thread. Not sure which thread to move it to.
I think it's clear by now (and I've been thinking this for months now) that Arianespace is the true "SpaceX adversary" if there is such a thing, not ULA. In fact, I'm not sure why ULA keeps getting singled out as SpX's nemesis.
ULA, by competitor status, isn't going to go out of their way to compliment SpX etc. and this makes sense. However the neutral to mild-congratulatory tone, to me at least, speaks volumes about their respect for SpX and their approach, even if they don't follow the same path. Vulcan engine reuse in response to SpX says the rest IMO.
On the other hand, it's well documented the animosity some Arianespace reps have spoken about SpaceX. I recall one panel where the Ariane representative essentially answered the question about how they will compete with SpaceX reuse by saying, "We aren't going to compete with a dream." THAT WAS WITH GYWNNE SITTING TWO SEATS AWAY. Talk about a in public dismissal.
TL;DR: Ariane hates SpX, ULA doesn't.
Post by: clegg78 on 03/31/2017 08:51 pm
I think of all the companies, BO is taking the most pragmatic, well funded, and deliberate path. They are learning from SpaceX's mistakes letting Elon forge the path and spend the capital finding the way forward on reusable. Then improving on that."Well funded"? Hrm. If you're a billionaire who doesn't need a ROI maybe.
I think the future will be BO and SpaceX eclipsing ULA, while ULA will keep its friends in the DoD and NRO for a while to come.
SpaceX had hands-down the best business model, which got them the funding to get to recovery w/o bleeding funds from Elon's much-more-limited pockets. Antares/Cygnus would have been the better "fast followers", if they'd managed to invest the same NASA CRS boot-strapping into a competitive rocket. BO is following everything but the business model of SpaceX, but I think it's the business model which has been most impressive and which gives confidence that further innovation is possible.
I was wearing a SpaceX shirt watching the launch yesterday, I am a big fan of SpaceX. But Bezos, is a quiet, methodical person who is great at execution. And yes he has virtually unlimited funds to build his rocket program to what ever he wants, THEN turn it into a business. Maybe not the best "startup" model, but impressive none the less. I have real admiration of both these guys. They are both incredible at what they are doing.
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 03/31/2017 08:52 pm
Looks like some amount of unburned kero got shot out and burned up once it hit the air?
Screenshots of the flame and one frame before.
Post by: Jarnis on 03/31/2017 09:03 pm
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:QuoteSo it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
He still thinks Falcon Heavy is not a thing. Once those three boosters all land and there is a vehicle that has performance for everything ULA can fly... maybe he then realizes his mistake?
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/31/2017 09:06 pm
I think it's clear by now (and I've been thinking this for months now) that Arianespace is the true "SpaceX adversary" if there is such a thing, not ULA. In fact, I'm not sure why ULA keeps getting singled out as SpX's nemesis.
Sure based on their markets Arianespace competes more missions against SpaceX than ULA does even if some of those competitions are unofficial. But, with the EELV certification, ULA is the only other company who can compete every mission/contract. CRS and comercial crew might be a small exception, but ULA is still contracted for Cygnus, Dreamchaser, and Starliner, just not as the prime.
Post by: riney on 03/31/2017 09:10 pm
Anyone else notice this weird burp/flame in the rocket plume?
Looks like some amount of unburned kero got shot out and burned up once it hit the air?
Screenshots of the flame and one frame before.
Post by: ugordan on 03/31/2017 09:14 pm
Anyone else notice this weird burp/flame in the rocket plume?
I wonder if it could be the plume ingesting the remaining tyvek cover on one of the legs that didn't get pulled off at liftoff like all the other ones?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/31/2017 09:43 pm
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.QuoteSo it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
From Mr. Bruno's point of view, the lift capability given up for recovery is a kind of lost business opportunity. His point is that this all does have a cost. Even Mr. Musk said yesterday that it has cost the company $1 billion in recovery systems development so far. Imagine how much smaller and cheaper Falcon could be if it was fully expendable while carrying the same payloads. It wouldn't need 10 Merlin engines per launch, for starters.
It is a fascinating debate. The answer will be given not by the words spoken by anyone, but by the results of the hardware and procedures and bottom-line budgets of these companies over the next decade.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Lar on 03/31/2017 10:08 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40377.0 "Reusability Effect on Costs"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39167.0 "Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
(and there are others)
I will move some of these posts I think, just have to try to decide which ones. Let's try to stay mission specific. It is hard because of the intertwining of this mission, and the sea change in thinking that many are seeing, and the congratulations and all... I know I posted some stuff here that probably doesn't belong...
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/31/2017 10:31 pm
So it is NOT just about a GTO sat launch. Which is why he said he brought his kids - for them to see Dad make history.
Tory is a class act. His congrats to SpaceX are what we want to see from rival execs (and Dr. Sowers was also gracious)... But I think the numbers are already staring him in the face, he just can't say that out loud.
There's another explanation for Bruno/Sowers. Remember that SX/BO have different capital utilization and funding sources.
ULA works very differently here. Capital utilization requires near immediate payback/return in a hand to mouth way, and very simple explanations that idi.ot congressman can parrot is all that needs to be uttered to keep things under control. Bruno/Sowers are not speaking to those here, so don't obsess too much.
ULA already has too much at stake with Vulcan/BE4/ACES, as a minimum to accommodate a limited future. That future involves a narrow but long term performance advantage, as they get tighter control over their provider business. They cannot afford, nor do they have a financial means like BO/SX to afford a development program for stage recovery, so they do what they can do, what they can say, from their narrow business/financial scope.
Quote
But this is almost all offtopic for a mission specific thread. Not sure which thread to move it to.It's on topic - Musk/Bruno/Halliwell comments make it so.
Martin and Elon made an important point in the press conference: this will be the new "normal". The idea of throwing away big rockets is going to be obsolete.
That's the whole point. But right now many providers are "shackled to the oar" by history and structures.
Quote
If your company or nation is shackled to launchers that were never designed for re-use, you are swimming in shark-infested waters with a cinder block tied to your ankle.
They're all not stupid, they know this. But they are constrained - someone else tied on that cinder block. And they will do what they are allowed to do. The selfsame "ty-er" has to be the one that unties the block. Otherwise they have smaller manifests, cost growth, and eventually they leave the business.
Quote
ULA didn't start talking about engine re-use until SpaceX convinced them that they better be seen to be doing something in that area.
During this time, engine reuse has not advanced one bit. Suggest that means it is only a placeholder fiction - unreal.
Also, suggest that it will be the first to vanish from the agenda, as its economics becomes insignificant.
Quote
Arianespace didn't start talking about re-use of engines on their new Ariane until SpaceX convinced them of the same thing.
Airbus Safran has a more serious problem than ULA - they are at a more critical point in finance, being between programs, where multiple cost structures and geopolitical forces conspire to make schedule/program risk extremely challenging.
Almost everyone was betting on SX to fail. This was/is unwise.
Quote
One man convinced a bunch of other people to take risks, work their butts off and CHANGE what's "normal". That is a big accomplishment.Yes.
He's trying to pivot a market to accommodate his interests. Bezos is more about selective "buy-in" w/o market disruption. Completely different means for similar approaches.
Bezos does know fast follower. But his ego gets in the way here, so Musk has still the inside advantage. Bezos often pays/loses hundreds of millions for his ego (personally watched him piss away Firephone on vanity). Musk is selling launch services, Bezos is talking about it.
You'll note that Musk is being uncharacteristically quiet on much that is changing at SX. He's making it harder for Bezos to "fast follow".
Post by: AncientU on 03/31/2017 11:11 pm
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.QuoteSo it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
From Mr. Bruno's point of view, the lift capability given up for recovery is a kind of lost business opportunity. His point is that this all does have a cost. Even Mr. Musk said yesterday that it has cost the company $1 billion in recovery systems development so far. Imagine how much smaller and cheaper Falcon could be if it was fully expendable while carrying the same payloads. It wouldn't need 10 Merlin engines per launch, for starters.
It is a fascinating debate. The answer will be given not by the words spoken by anyone, but by the results of the hardware and procedures and bottom-line budgets of these companies over the next decade.
- Ed Kyle
I believe that we are half way through the decade to which you refer. The results of the hardware, procedures, and budgets were on display last night. One company has 6,000 employees and is hiring at fastest clip ever -- the other is dropping through half that number and is just starting to invest in new technology (and have an internal combustion engine to show for it so far). ULA might still be on USG life support in mid 2020s, but don't plan on them being carried for much longer than that unless they seriously up their game.
Post by: cppetrie on 03/31/2017 11:11 pm
It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.Where did 8 tons to GTO with recovery for FH come from? Wiki says 22 tons to GTO, which I assume is with expendable cores. The payload penalty for a single stick Falcon is about 1/3 max capacity. Even if you use a recoverability penalty of 50% for FH that is still 11 tons to GTO.
Also, D4H has flown at a rate of less than 1 per year in the little more than a decade it has been in existence. Basing your design/use paradigm on a rare need rather than designing for the commonest circumstances while including capability to cover the rare circumstances seems kinda shortsighted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy)
Post by: mme on 03/31/2017 11:16 pm
Check out the "pricing" page. Prices are for recoverable missions.It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.Where did 8 tons to GTO with recovery for FH come from? Wiki says 22 tons to GTO, which I assume is with expendable cores. The payload penalty for a single stick Falcon is about 1/3 max capacity. Even if you use a recoverability penalty of 50% for FH that is still 11 tons to GTO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy)
Post by: Confusador on 03/31/2017 11:23 pm
Check out the "pricing" page. Prices are for recoverable missions.It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.Where did 8 tons to GTO with recovery for FH come from? Wiki says 22 tons to GTO, which I assume is with expendable cores. The payload penalty for a single stick Falcon is about 1/3 max capacity. Even if you use a recoverability penalty of 50% for FH that is still 11 tons to GTO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy)
That's http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities, for clarity. $90M for 8.0 mT to GTO, reusable. 22 mT GTO expendable (no price given).
Edit: Also worth noting that the F9 expendable performance is *higher* than the FH recoverable. The performance penalty is very real.
Post by: cppetrie on 03/31/2017 11:23 pm
I see the source. However, it is based on a document from 2013 about the time of the debut of Falcon v1.1. Has anything been updated to reflect the increased capacity with more recent improvements to the cores?Check out the "pricing" page. Prices are for recoverable missions.It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.Where did 8 tons to GTO with recovery for FH come from? Wiki says 22 tons to GTO, which I assume is with expendable cores. The payload penalty for a single stick Falcon is about 1/3 max capacity. Even if you use a recoverability penalty of 50% for FH that is still 11 tons to GTO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy)
Edit: even the current live version of the page on SpaceX's website still says the same thing. Hard to believe that the recovery penalty is 2/3. Maybe they just haven't updated the small print on the page after uprating the rocket overall?
Post by: cppetrie on 03/31/2017 11:29 pm
But why would it be double the penalty of the single stick version? And why hasn't the capacity increased at all even while the overall rocket performance has increased. Something doesn't add up to me?Check out the "pricing" page. Prices are for recoverable missions.It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.Where did 8 tons to GTO with recovery for FH come from? Wiki says 22 tons to GTO, which I assume is with expendable cores. The payload penalty for a single stick Falcon is about 1/3 max capacity. Even if you use a recoverability penalty of 50% for FH that is still 11 tons to GTO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy)
That's http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities, for clarity. $90M for 8.0 mT to GTO, reusable. 22 mT GTO expendable (no price given).
Edit: Also worth noting that the F9 expendable performance is *higher* than the FH recoverable. The performance penalty is very real.
Post by: dorkmo on 04/01/2017 12:07 am
Awesome banner image from SpaceX.com of today's flight booster along with two others being prepped for future flights.
duno if anyone mentioned, but you can see a little bit of the top of the first stage without the interstage behind the TEL
Post by: ulm_atms on 04/01/2017 12:08 am
As I said, this is my understanding of current numbers with current information. I know this was/is discussed in other threads and that is where I am getting my "understanding" from, but it at least makes sense for me. Feel free to correct me if I have some thought way out of wack.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/01/2017 12:19 am
It would seem it isn't as much about things like reuse, as it is about how competition has been changed.
Bruno wants to claim the mantle of payload size, and hold that. But for how long? Perhaps six months?
We've gotten another LV fielded in a year that didn't need to be assembled from scratch. That means a launch was booked in less time than the lead time for an Atlas (two years). ULA now has Quick Launch, but is this truly a rival given that boosters still need to be made to the longer schedule, and perhaps with 6 more relaunches this year alone of already assembled Falcon 9's, that temporary advantage is already lost?
From Mr. Bruno's point of view, the lift capability given up for recovery is a kind of lost business opportunity. His point is that this all does have a cost. Even Mr. Musk said yesterday that it has cost the company $1 billion in recovery systems development so far. Imagine how much smaller and cheaper Falcon could be if it was fully expendable while carrying the same payloads. It wouldn't need 10 Merlin engines per launch, for starters.
It is a fascinating debate. The answer will be given not by the words spoken by anyone, but by the results of the hardware and procedures and bottom-line budgets of these companies over the next decade.
Businesses can be run by "net profit" , "loss optimized", or "gross revenues" means. OA favors the first, ULA the second, and SX the third.
Net profit means you add when you see enough of an increment to matter. Loss optimized you're always attempting to stay within the boundaries of what you can/cannot do. So both of these are about "cherry picking" - they assume most bypasses them anyways, so they can never control a market.
A gross revenues strategy is all about volume, and dominating price point. You take all deals that you can, knowing that long term you can choose what the price will be irrespective of anything except market value. Market control.
What Bruno worries about as missing capacity could be totally irrelevant.
The launch services provider market has always been obsessed on cost with the fewest launches and the fewest providers, for some very good reasons. But this has acted to perpetuate minimal payload growth. You might assume that's all that's possible - self fulfilling prophecy.
If true, SX might eat most/all launches, starve the others, and settle down for a nap waiting for more. They might even do that before BO enters the arena, or Vulcan does its first commercial launch.
ULA might still be on USG life support in mid 2020s, but don't plan on them being carried for much longer than that unless they seriously up their game.
I believe that the key item to look at is if there are two providers that are commercially competitive, that could be qualified for NSS payloads.
At some point, if a provider is 2-3x more expensive (or more), they may not be considered competitive. So they might be barred from being a provider.
Both ULA and OA have ambitions of NSS launch providing, perhaps even as sole sourced vendors on selective programs. That's far away from the AF's desire to buy launch tickets for payloads as if for airline fare for passengers. We'd be back to the "bad old days", with even worse pricing.
What are the roles that the other providers can play against this "GTO juggernaut"?
Post by: Surfdaddy on 04/01/2017 12:34 am
I recall one panel where the Ariane representative essentially answered the question about how they will compete with SpaceX reuse by saying, "We aren't going to compete with a dream."
No, they are competing with their worst nightmare!
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/01/2017 01:53 am
Quote from: Dmitry Peskov
“We have every reason to believe that we can compete” with SpaceX and other companies in the global space industry, Peskov was quoted as saying by the state-run RIA Novosti news agency. He did not specify what exactly the government plans to do to compete.
Russia’s state space corporation, Roscosmos, is being modernized right now, Peskov said. “The head of Roscomos, Igor Komarov, has reported to President Vladimir Putin that Russian specialists are working on cutting-edge technologies.”
Quote from: Vadim Lukashevich
Russia, “homeland of [the first man in space Yuri] Gagarin,” has fallen 20 years behind Musk, Vadim Lukashevich, a prominent space expert who was dismissed from the Skolkovo, a state-backed research center, for criticizing Roscosmos’ reform efforts in 2015, wrote on Facebook Friday.
“Today, the Presidential Space Council will discuss the main areas of development of the Russian space industry up to 2030, and this program has nothing in it about reusing [rockets],” Lukashevich wrote. “I’m genuinely ashamed for Roscosmos.”
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
Post by: macpacheco on 04/01/2017 03:25 am
Launching...SpaceX already knows how to launch. They already knew how to test a rocket to ensure its safe to launch.
I wasn't nervous at all on this launch. I expected nearly the same chance of success as a regular launch, with so little extra risk there was no point being extra anxious.
At the same time, an objective viewer that doesn't track SpaceX exploits closely had every reason to say I'll believe it when I see it. Just not me.
You incorrectly assume that SpaceX has leeway to launch as many customers on reused boosters as they'd like. We don't know what's on the launch contracts, but I think its safe to assume that the vast majority of contracts specify new boosters and customers will demand a discount *if* they accept to fly on a reused stage.Don't see why SX would have to give large discounts. If they can (re)launch reliably and they are still the cheapest gig in town and they have spare capacity then they are in a great position.
They need to offer large discounts to drive up demand. Without demand, they don't fly often enough and fixed costs start catching up with them.
They have 70+ launches on their manifest. They can't even service their current demand at the moment. I'd say they can retain current price levels through the 70 remaining existing launches. That's 70 x $30m profit per reusable launch = a cool $2Bn profit over the next 2-3 years.
And by the time they have cleared that manifest they will likely have more than 70 new launches on the books, even at, or very close to, current prices.
At that point they can decide to start dropping prices, if it makes sense. But otherwise milk it for as long as they can, would be my advice.
But with the booster being 75% of the rocket construction costs and around half of the entire launch cost, SpaceX can easily give customers a 30% discount for existing contracts that jump the bandwagon.
For new launch contracts the discussion is quite different. Once several relaunches have been demonstrated and assuming no launch failures, SpaceX might be able to reduce the discount perhaps to 20 or 25%.
SpaceX does have substantial motive to give higher discounts for block launch purchases. Specially if the customer commit 100% of their launches to SpaceX.
SpaceX reuse will certainly change the market. Although I gave you a Like, I'll add the fact that this whole thing is contingent on Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy being an extremely reliable launch vehicle. If SpaceX does say 50 launches between failures, then Ariane is nearly dead, if SpaceX continues having a failure every 12-15 launches, Ariane will find conservative customers willing to pay extra to get reliability.I recall one panel where the Ariane representative essentially answered the question about how they will compete with SpaceX reuse by saying, "We aren't going to compete with a dream."
No, they are competing with their worst nightmare!
BTW I think SpaceX knows what its doing and reliability is only going up by testing recovered stages as much as needed, even destructive testing when appropriate. In fact that's one of the biggest reasons to recover 2nd stages too, nobody knows what gremlins are hiding there until those stages are recovered and extensively tested/analyzed.
Post by: MP99 on 04/01/2017 05:38 am
Do we have any idea as to what was changed out or refurbished, percentage of changes, and the associated costs with those parts and labour, for this launch ??...Four months. According to Elon, "the core airframe remained the same, the engines remained the same, but any auxillary components that might be slightly questionable we changed out."
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62i6m1/recap_of_the_elon_musk_and_martin_halliwell_press/dfmw95b/
That explains why they upgraded blocks - those were the available components.
Cheers, Martin
Post by: alang on 04/01/2017 06:05 am
Tory is a class act. His congrats to SpaceX are what we want to see from rival execs (and Dr. Sowers was also gracious)...
But I think the numbers are already staring him in the face, he just can't say that out loud. SpaceX optimized for cost from the get go and has lots of margin to play with. ULA optimizes for performance so they don't have the margins. And they don't have the funding from B/L to play catchup fast. Vulcan is the best they can do.
Jeff Bezos congratulations were ... well I didn't find any yet... maybe you did... But Amazon is a master at Fast-Follower. You can be sure the Blue team are studying every single scrap of publicly available data and figuring out how to do it better faster and cheaper. Blue is what should keep Elon up at night, not ULA.
But this is almost all offtopic for a mission specific thread. Not sure which thread to move it to.
I think it's clear by now (and I've been thinking this for months now) that Arianespace is the true "SpaceX adversary" if there is such a thing, not ULA. In fact, I'm not sure why ULA keeps getting singled out as SpX's nemesis.
ULA, by competitor status, isn't going to go out of their way to compliment SpX etc. and this makes sense. However the neutral to mild-congratulatory tone, to me at least, speaks volumes about their respect for SpX and their approach, even if they don't follow the same path. Vulcan engine reuse in response to SpX says the rest IMO.
On the other hand, it's well documented the animosity some Arianespace reps have spoken about SpaceX. I recall one panel where the Ariane representative essentially answered the question about how they will compete with SpaceX reuse by saying, "We aren't going to compete with a dream." THAT WAS WITH GYWNNE SITTING TWO SEATS AWAY. Talk about a in public dismissal.
TL;DR: Ariane hates SpX, ULA doesn't.
Europeans aren't good at the "competition" thing. Part of this probably comes from being in a culture where it is difficult to hire because it's difficult to fire. Most people aren't thinking "I'd better keep it polite because I might want a job with the other guy one day".
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/01/2017 07:18 am
Quote
Good summary of yesterday's flight and the implications for the future of space travel http://www.space.com/36300-spacex-rocket-reflight-elon-musk-mars-colony.html
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847999277381144577 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847999277381144577)
Quote
How SpaceX's Historic Rocket Re-Flight Boosts Elon Musk's Mars Plan
By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer | March 31, 2017 03:15pm ET
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/01/2017 07:27 am
A while ago I posted in the reuse discussions my assumption that the hard thing was landing and figuring out how to minimize refurb efforts.
Launching...SpaceX already knows how to launch. They already knew how to test a rocket to ensure its safe to launch.
I wasn't nervous at all on this launch. I expected nearly the same chance of success as a regular launch, with so little extra risk there was no point being extra anxious.
At the same time, an objective viewer that doesn't track SpaceX exploits closely had every reason to say I'll believe it when I see it. Just not me.You incorrectly assume that SpaceX has leeway to launch as many customers on reused boosters as they'd like. We don't know what's on the launch contracts, but I think its safe to assume that the vast majority of contracts specify new boosters and customers will demand a discount *if* they accept to fly on a reused stage.Don't see why SX would have to give large discounts. If they can (re)launch reliably and they are still the cheapest gig in town and they have spare capacity then they are in a great position.
They need to offer large discounts to drive up demand. Without demand, they don't fly often enough and fixed costs start catching up with them.
They have 70+ launches on their manifest. They can't even service their current demand at the moment. I'd say they can retain current price levels through the 70 remaining existing launches. That's 70 x $30m profit per reusable launch = a cool $2Bn profit over the next 2-3 years.
And by the time they have cleared that manifest they will likely have more than 70 new launches on the books, even at, or very close to, current prices.
At that point they can decide to start dropping prices, if it makes sense. But otherwise milk it for as long as they can, would be my advice.
But with the booster being 75% of the rocket construction costs and around half of the entire launch cost, SpaceX can easily give customers a 30% discount for existing contracts that jump the bandwagon.
For new launch contracts the discussion is quite different. Once several relaunches have been demonstrated and assuming no launch failures, SpaceX might be able to reduce the discount perhaps to 20 or 25%.
SpaceX does have substantial motive to give higher discounts for block launch purchases. Specially if the customer commit 100% of their launches to SpaceX.SpaceX reuse will certainly change the market. Although I gave you a Like, I'll add the fact that this whole thing is contingent on Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy being an extremely reliable launch vehicle. If SpaceX does say 50 launches between failures, then Ariane is nearly dead, if SpaceX continues having a failure every 12-15 launches, Ariane will find conservative customers willing to pay extra to get reliability.I recall one panel where the Ariane representative essentially answered the question about how they will compete with SpaceX reuse by saying, "We aren't going to compete with a dream."
No, they are competing with their worst nightmare!
BTW I think SpaceX knows what its doing and reliability is only going up by testing recovered stages as much as needed, even destructive testing when appropriate. In fact that's one of the biggest reasons to recover 2nd stages too, nobody knows what gremlins are hiding there until those stages are recovered and extensively tested/analyzed.
Based on initial estimates, by the time Block 5 is operational next year a launch should cost SpaceX around $20m. Musk suggested about a dozen reuse flights next year - likely all on Block 5. By then, reliability should be firmly established - presuming no failures occur.
At that point, SpaceX could offer any customer a $12m discount on the current $62m launch price (just shy of a 20% discount), and still make roughly $30m gross profit per launch.
I don't see a shortage of customers going for such a deal at that point, with a track record of reuse reliability in place.
Post by: Paul_G on 04/01/2017 10:11 am
Europeans aren't good at the "competition" thing. Part of this probably comes from being in a culture where it is difficult to hire because it's difficult to fire. Most people aren't thinking "I'd better keep it polite because I might want a job with the other guy one day".
That's an impressively wide brush you just tarred 742 million people with, so thanks. It is perfectly possible to hire and fire in Europe.
Post by: hkultala on 04/01/2017 11:04 am
Europeans aren't good at the "competition" thing. Part of this probably comes from being in a culture where it is difficult to hire because it's difficult to fire. Most people aren't thinking "I'd better keep it polite because I might want a job with the other guy one day".
That's an impressively wide brush you just tarred 742 million people with, so thanks. It is perfectly possible to hire and fire in Europe.
In most european countries you cannot just fire a bad, unskilled worker, it they have not made any illegal/dangerous things (and even when they do something illegal/dangerous, you often have to first give a warning and you can only fire them when they do it AGAIN.
You can only fire those "bad workers" if you keep co-determination negotiations, but then you cannot hire new people at the same time.
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 04/01/2017 11:11 am
Post by: rad on 04/01/2017 11:31 am
Post by: macpacheco on 04/01/2017 11:39 am
Hey! What's happening with the vessels in the sea? Have they started heading back yet?There's a thread just for ASDS return:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42646.0
Don't discuss here, discuss there.
Post by: Lar on 04/01/2017 03:02 pm
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
"It's flowers and berries in front" (blame Google Translate if not correct) ? is that a Russian aphorism for something along the lines of "you're just trying to make it look good?" or ??
QuoteGood summary of yesterday's flight and the implications for the future of space travel http://www.space.com/36300-spacex-rocket-reflight-elon-musk-mars-colony.html
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847999277381144577 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847999277381144577)QuoteHow SpaceX's Historic Rocket Re-Flight Boosts Elon Musk's Mars Plan
By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer | March 31, 2017 03:15pm ET
Link not quite right? Or Elon deleted it already?
Here's the direct link to the space.com article again (it's quoted above so apparently I just like to hear myself talk, but you knew that). If you find a better link to Elon's tweet please share (I retweet a lot of his stuff), thanks!!!!
http://www.space.com/36300-spacex-rocket-reflight-elon-musk-mars-colony.html
Post by: vandersons on 04/01/2017 03:34 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/01/2017 03:43 pm
Link not quite right? Or Elon deleted it already?
Looks like it's been deleted <enter conspiracy theory here> :D
Post by: ulm_atms on 04/01/2017 05:16 pm
As of 18:57 UTC March 31, Space Track shows the following.
Falcon 9 R/B: 217 x 33,395 km x 26.31 deg
SES 10: 247 x 35,673 km x 26.18 deg
SFN gave a targeted 218 x 35,410 km x 26.2 deg insertion orbit.
Makes me wonder if S2 burned to depletion. That heavy of a bird would need about all the S2 has(especially with the S1 landing attempt). If the track for S2 above was after sep and doesn't include any blow down....then John's "good enough" in the webcast was right and there was some underperforming experienced, but nothing way out of line. I just wouldn't think they would leave some performance on the table if they could help it.
Post by: mme on 04/01/2017 05:43 pm
...Ironically SES seems to compete just fine.
Europeans aren't good at the "competition" thing. Part of this probably comes from being in a culture where it is difficult to hire because it's difficult to fire. Most people aren't thinking "I'd better keep it polite because I might want a job with the other guy one day".
Post by: gospacex on 04/01/2017 06:19 pm
"Economics of reuse is not proven", nothing to see here, move along ;) ;)Puts on "Jim" hat: In all honesty, it hasn't been proven ... yet. A rocket has been reused, but we don't have any insight into just how much it cost to do that. Granted, it would cost more for the first time than it should in the long term, but we have no numbers yet on the economics of all this.
User "dglow" in another thread recalled some old quotes by Jim et al, of the same "technically true" type:
even if they land it, it doesn't mean they can reuse the stage.
They've tried twice for the barge and crashed both times, with a third attempt called off by rough waves. Three prior return tests without the barge also had mixed results. These experiments are bold and interesting, but they're not free.
Well, actually not-so-old quotes. Only 2 years ago :D
Post by: gospacex on 04/01/2017 06:24 pm
I think it's clear by now (and I've been thinking this for months now) that Arianespace is the true "SpaceX adversary" if there is such a thing, not ULA. In fact, I'm not sure why ULA keeps getting singled out as SpX's nemesis.
Because only US domestic launch providers can launch DoD/NRO payloads. That's a big chunk of pie for (as of now) only SpaceX and ULA to fight over. Not Arianespace.
Post by: gospacex on 04/01/2017 06:31 pm
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit.QuoteSo it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
A single DIVH flight costs ~ $400M.
An entirely expendable flight of FH is going to be about x2 cheaper.
Post by: gospacex on 04/01/2017 06:40 pm
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
"It's flowers and berries in front" (blame Google Translate if not correct) ? is that a Russian aphorism for something along the lines of "you're just trying to make it look good?" or ??
"These are merely flowers, berries will appear later". This means that what you already got is not the worst part, the worse part is ahead.
Post by: cppetrie on 04/01/2017 06:41 pm
Plus DIVH flies at a rate of less than 1 per year. That doesn't suggest there is a very robust market for launching really heavy payloads. Nearly all have been NRO launches. A payload requiring a FH launch with recovery will be cheaper than the next alternative and anything that can't support recovery will still cost half of what the only other provider is charging. A FH launch with recovery is probably less cost to SpaceX than a F9 expendable. It's a win for SpaceX either way.The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit.QuoteSo it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbitSince when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
A single DIVH flight costs ~ $400M.
An entirely expendable flight of FH is going to be about x2 cheaper.
Post by: cppetrie on 04/01/2017 06:44 pm
But berries are delicious (the edible ones anyway). Why is that worse than the flowers? Seems better to me. Something along the lines of "these flowers portend tasty things to come".
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
"It's flowers and berries in front" (blame Google Translate if not correct) ? is that a Russian aphorism for something along the lines of "you're just trying to make it look good?" or ??
"These are merely flowers, berries will appear later". This means that what you already got is not the worst part, the worse part is ahead.
Post by: gospacex on 04/01/2017 06:58 pm
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
"It's flowers and berries in front" (blame Google Translate if not correct) ? is that a Russian aphorism for something along the lines of "you're just trying to make it look good?" or ??
"These are merely flowers, berries will appear later". This means that what you already got is not the worst part, the worse part is ahead.
But berries are delicious (the edible ones anyway). Why is that worse than the flowers? Seems better to me. Something along the lines of "these flowers portend tasty things to come".
No, the saying's meaning is as I indicated. I'm not guessing it, I know.
Post by: cppetrie on 04/01/2017 07:08 pm
Sorry. I wasn't questioning your accuracy. Just commenting that the English translation doesn't really translate the meaning of the statement. That is usually the case with colloquialisms. The context that makes the saying meaningful doesn't translate along with the words.
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
"It's flowers and berries in front" (blame Google Translate if not correct) ? is that a Russian aphorism for something along the lines of "you're just trying to make it look good?" or ??
"These are merely flowers, berries will appear later". This means that what you already got is not the worst part, the worse part is ahead.
But berries are delicious (the edible ones anyway). Why is that worse than the flowers? Seems better to me. Something along the lines of "these flowers portend tasty things to come".
No, the saying's meaning is as I indicated. I'm not guessing it, I know.
Off-topic edit: the Internet really needs a sarcasm/not-serious font. I suggested to a friend once that it be similar to italics but angled the other way.
Post by: Lar on 04/01/2017 07:12 pm
1 - He does that a lot.
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/01/2017 07:23 pm
I think we need to understand what SG meant with that[1]... that things are gonna get tougher for Roscosmos?? or the converse, that things are going to get tougher for others as Russia ramps up something? I doubt the latter
1 - He does that a lot.
I think he means with respect to SpaceX. It cost $300 million dollars to develop Falcon 9. It cost a billion dollars to get to the point they're ready to re-fly the first stage boosters after flying acceptably heavy payloads to GTO. Now they need to figure out how to keep those first stages flying indefinitely at low cost and how to accommodate any growth in payload mass and/or volume. The latter achievements look like they'll be a lot harder than the former.
Post by: gospacex on 04/01/2017 08:01 pm
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
The accent marks are used only when there is a need to indicate stressed vowels (e.g. in vocabularies or education books). In normal text they are not used. The letter "ё" is also customarily replaced by "е" because it can be guessed from the context.
Это еще цветочки, а ягодки впереди.
This particular saying is often shortened to the first half - the recipient is likely to recognize the saying even in the short form.
Это еще цветочки...
Post by: AncientU on 04/01/2017 08:03 pm
Russia On SpaceX: That's Cute But We're Awesome Too (https://jalopnik.com/russia-on-spacex-thats-cute-but-were-awesome-too-1793897006):Quote from: Dmitry Peskov“We have every reason to believe that we can compete” with SpaceX and other companies in the global space industry, Peskov was quoted as saying by the state-run RIA Novosti news agency. He did not specify what exactly the government plans to do to compete.
Russia’s state space corporation, Roscosmos, is being modernized right now, Peskov said. “The head of Roscomos, Igor Komarov, has reported to President Vladimir Putin that Russian specialists are working on cutting-edge technologies.”Quote from: Vadim LukashevichRussia, “homeland of [the first man in space Yuri] Gagarin,” has fallen 20 years behind Musk, Vadim Lukashevich, a prominent space expert who was dismissed from the Skolkovo, a state-backed research center, for criticizing Roscosmos’ reform efforts in 2015, wrote on Facebook Friday.
“Today, the Presidential Space Council will discuss the main areas of development of the Russian space industry up to 2030, and this program has nothing in it about reusing [rockets],” Lukashevich wrote. “I’m genuinely ashamed for Roscosmos.”
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
"It's flowers and berries in front" (blame Google Translate if not correct) ? is that a Russian aphorism for something along the lines of "you're just trying to make it look good?" or ??
"These are merely flowers, berries will appear later". This means that what you already got is not the worst part, the worse part is ahead.
Thanks.
Poignant to break the bad news in Cyrillic.
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/01/2017 08:06 pm
From the Update thread:As of 18:57 UTC March 31, Space Track shows the following.
Falcon 9 R/B: 217 x 33,395 km x 26.31 deg
SES 10: 247 x 35,673 km x 26.18 deg
SFN gave a targeted 218 x 35,410 km x 26.2 deg insertion orbit.
Makes me wonder if S2 burned to depletion. That heavy of a bird would need about all the S2 has(especially with the S1 landing attempt). If the track for S2 above was after sep and doesn't include any blow down....then John's "good enough" in the webcast was right and there was some underperforming experienced, but nothing way out of line. I just wouldn't think they would leave some performance on the table if they could help it.
To be clear, SpaceX has said that the payload ended up within its required orbital parameter range. That said, I agree it does look like it might have been a depletion type cutoff, where the stage may have ended up just short of the perfectly ideal apogee and inclination. Maybe only a momentary shortfall in burn time, since cutoff appeared to coincide with the time listed in the press kit.
Note that this stage ended up more than 2,000 km short on apogee, whereas the Echostar 23 stage is orbiting only 108 km short of its payload's insertion orbit apogee. On the other hand, it is possible that the planned parameters listed by SFN subsequently changed on launch day based on temperatures, wind speeds, and the like (see Delta 280).
- Ed Kyle
Post by: cartman on 04/01/2017 08:37 pm
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/01/2017 08:45 pm
What is the deltaV difference between the upper stage and the satellite?Currently about 44 m/s, not including the inclination change. The difference between the current second stage orbit and the insertion goal listed by SFN is about 35 m/s, not including inclination difference.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/01/2017 11:24 pm
So the second stage looks like it was 21 m/s off from what SES said. My uneducated guess is that's well within the contracted parameters and any definition of success.
Edit: To check my math...
Second stage: 217 x 33,395 km x 26.31 deg = -1810.9 GTO
SES presser: 218 x 35,410 km x 26.2 deg = -1789.2 GTO
The difference is 21.7 m/s
Post by: winkhomewinkhome on 04/02/2017 01:29 am
But berries are delicious (the edible ones anyway). Why is that worse than the flowers? Seems better to me. Something along the lines of "these flowers portend tasty things to come".
Это ещё цвето́чки, а я́годки впереди́.
"It's flowers and berries in front" (blame Google Translate if not correct) ? is that a Russian aphorism for something along the lines of "you're just trying to make it look good?" or ??
"These are merely flowers, berries will appear later". This means that what you already got is not the worst part, the worse part is ahead.
While I agree with your positive interpretation; given the phrase is of Russian origin, the referred to berries are more than likely poisonous...thus.
Post by: stcks on 04/02/2017 01:52 am
My notes from Martin Halliwell's (SES) presser was that the target insertion was perigee of 218 km, apogee of 35,410 and inclination of 26.2 degrees on a 5,281.7 kg bird. My calculations show that as -1789 m/s GTO.
So the second stage looks like it was 21 m/s off from what SES said. My uneducated guess is that's well within the contracted parameters and any definition of success.
Edit: To check my math...
Second stage: 217 x 33,395 km x 26.31 deg = -1810.9 GTO
SES presser: 218 x 35,410 km x 26.2 deg = -1789.2 GTO
The difference is 21.7 m/s
And I'm showing a difference of about 37 m/s ... just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am curious what are your methods for this calculation. For subsync calculations I first raise apogee to GEO at perigee and then do a typical perigee raise and inclination change.
Heres the code if your interested (and I would like some peer review anyway): https://gist.github.com/anonymous/aa3397ea848d2e2d6986804f027e286e
Post by: Comga on 04/02/2017 03:48 am
There is an mathematically determinable optimum with some small amount of plane change at perigee.My notes from Martin Halliwell's (SES) presser was that the target insertion was perigee of 218 km, apogee of 35,410 and inclination of 26.2 degrees on a 5,281.7 kg bird. My calculations show that as -1789 m/s GTO.
So the second stage looks like it was 21 m/s off from what SES said. My uneducated guess is that's well within the contracted parameters and any definition of success.
Edit: To check my math...
Second stage: 217 x 33,395 km x 26.31 deg = -1810.9 GTO
SES presser: 218 x 35,410 km x 26.2 deg = -1789.2 GTO
The difference is 21.7 m/s
And I'm showing a difference of about 37 m/s ... just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am curious what are your methods for this calculation. For subsync calculations I first raise apogee to GEO at perigee and then do a typical perigee raise and inclination change.
Heres the code if your interested (and I would like some peer review anyway): https://gist.github.com/anonymous/aa3397ea848d2e2d6986804f027e286e
You could test this without determining the optimum. Try 1 degree or 2.
The advantage is on the order the difference between the two calculations.
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/02/2017 06:57 pm
And I'm showing a difference of about 37 m/s ... just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am curious what are your methods for this calculation. For subsync calculations I first raise apogee to GEO at perigee and then do a typical perigee raise and inclination change.
Heres the code if your interested (and I would like some peer review anyway): https://gist.github.com/anonymous/aa3397ea848d2e2d6986804f027e286e
I also am using the LouScheffer's method (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36954.0) that I transcribed to a spreadsheet. But I note that his method assumes a supersynchronous orbit.
Post by: stcks on 04/03/2017 12:57 pm
I also am using the LouScheffer's method (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36954.0) that I transcribed to a spreadsheet. But I note that his method assumes a supersynchronous orbit.
Yeah his method is perfect for super-sync injections (you'll note that I based mine on his code) but if you use it for sub-sync its going to be much less optimal.
Post by: AncientU on 04/03/2017 05:01 pm
Quote
Space Reporters React to SpaceX’s Breakthrough Moment in Spaceflighthttp://observer.com/2017/04/space-reporters-react-to-spacexs-breakthrough-moment-in-spaceflight/
Post by: AncientU on 04/03/2017 05:29 pm
Quote
Every now and then I like to go back and read what Sen. Richard Shelby said about SpaceX in 2010. And then I laugh.
Quote
“This request represents nothing more than a commercially-led, faith-based space program. Today, the commercial providers that NASA has contracted with cannot even carry the trash back from the space station much less carry humans to or from space safely.https://www.shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile/newsreleases?ID=25F3AD2E-802A-23AD-4960-F512B9E205D2
“These providers have yet to live up to the promises they have already made to the taxpayer. Not a single rocket or ounce of cargo has been launched since we met last year. Instead of requiring accountability from these companies, the President’s budget proposes to reward these failed commercial providers with an additional bailout.
Eric Berger tweets
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace
Post by: Lar on 04/03/2017 05:40 pm
Here is a set of perspectives that I found encouraging:QuoteSpace Reporters React to SpaceX’s Breakthrough Moment in Spaceflighthttp://observer.com/2017/04/space-reporters-react-to-spacexs-breakthrough-moment-in-spaceflight/
I don't turn off ad blockers, can someone net out the article?.. it sound really interesting.
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/03/2017 05:49 pm
Here is a set of perspectives that I found encouraging:QuoteSpace Reporters React to SpaceX’s Breakthrough Moment in Spaceflighthttp://observer.com/2017/04/space-reporters-react-to-spacexs-breakthrough-moment-in-spaceflight/
I don't turn off ad blockers, can someone net out the article?.. it sound really interesting.
It's a collection of paragraphs from about ten different commentators, newscasters, and bloggers about how they believe this launch was interesting and historic.
Post by: Wolfram66 on 04/04/2017 08:35 pm
looking at images posted of the landing it looks like the standard one engine landing burn.
also any update on delta V shortfall on the S2 2nd burn?
thanks in advance
Post by: AncientU on 04/04/2017 11:42 pm
Here is a set of perspectives that I found encouraging:QuoteSpace Reporters React to SpaceX’s Breakthrough Moment in Spaceflighthttp://observer.com/2017/04/space-reporters-react-to-spacexs-breakthrough-moment-in-spaceflight/
I don't turn off ad blockers, can someone net out the article?.. it sound really interesting.
A few of the comments (could have picked any handful at random):
Synopsis:
Quote
The Observer reached out to print, radio, and television reporters who have first-hand experience covering NASA and the commercial industry to get their reactions to the breakthrough reflight and what it might mean for the future of space exploration.
Quote
Brendan Byrne (WMFE 90.7 NPR Affiliate, ‘Are We There Yet’ Podcast) – “Accessibility is the key to exploration and rocket reusability is one way to make space open to more people. Thursday’s relaunch is a great proof of concept and if launch operators can duplicate those results, we’re on our way to becoming a spacefaring nation. SpaceX is leading the pack, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s many more on its heels. If we’re going to venture onto other planets, this is the technology we have to master.”
Quote
Sarah Fecht (Popular Science) – “One of the coolest things about being a journalist is being able to witness history being made, and that’s what we saw Thursday night. SpaceX has proven it’s possible to reuse a rocket that’s powerful enough to launch big payloads into orbit. They’ve still got a lot of work to do in terms of making the refurbishment process more efficient, but if reusable rockets result in the 100-fold savings that Elon Musk is predicting, that would be huge. Cheap and easy access to space means we could start thinking about building communities and economies in Earth orbit and on other worlds.”
Quote
James Dean (USA Today Network, Florida Today) – “It appears the old rules of rocketry no longer apply. Big rockets can not only land but fly again. How often and how efficiently will determine how big the industry impact is, but Musk has delivered on his promises so far (with a few setbacks along the way), and we know Bezos and Blue Origin are coming on strong with similar goals for reusability. It was a fun mission to watch, in part because it looked so routine.”
Quote
Michael Seeley (We Report Space) – “It’s difficult for me to put into words what I felt watching the SpaceX “flight proven” Falcon 9 successfully carry the SES10 satellite to orbit. In addition to the usual excitement of experiencing a launch, I also felt a sense of progression and curiosity about what that may lead to. I was there to see the “flight proven” first stage in its first life as it carried the CRS-8 payload to the International Space Station last year. I was also there to watch the first stage return to port atop the “Of Course I Still Love You.” And Thursday, we watched SpaceX take the next step, by proving that however cool it may be to land a rocket (and it is indeed cool), reusability of those rockets is essential. I am reminded, loudly, that there is a purpose, and vision, and an incredibly talented team executing this vision, making progress toward a goal to be an interplanetary species.”
Quote
Sawyer Rosenstein (Talking Space)- “Launch pad 39A has been home to some historic launches from moon landings to Hubble repair missions. It’s very fitting that SpaceX is using a historic site to make their own history. Having seen this booster launch back in April, one of the most spectacular things was watching the engineers react to the first ever barge landing. Now to see it launch and land again brings back those same goosebumps the engineers, and myself had on that day knowing that we’d witnessed a fundamental change in the future of spaceflight. This is the biggest step yet into the era of *actually* affordable reusable rockets.”
Post by: cscott on 04/05/2017 12:40 am
With the stated mass to GTO of SES-10, do we know which landing burn profile was used?We have official confirmation that there was no shortfall. I haven't heard anything about the landing burn, but I agree the photos look like a single-engine burn.
looking at images posted of the landing it looks like the standard one engine landing burn.
also any update on delta V shortfall on the S2 2nd burn?
thanks in advance
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/05/2017 01:47 am
With the stated mass to GTO of SES-10, do we know which landing burn profile was used?The second stage is most recently shown in a 238 x 33,403 km x 26.19 deg orbit. Earlier, it was shown in a 217 x 33,395 km x 26.31 deg orbit. Before the launch, SES said that the planned injection orbit was 218 x 35,410 km x 26.2 deg. I haven't yet seen a Falcon 9 second stage move much after spacecraft separation.
looking at images posted of the landing it looks like the standard one engine landing burn.
also any update on delta V shortfall on the S2 2nd burn?
thanks in advance
SES 10 was originally tracked in a 247 x 35,673 km x 26.18 deg orbit, but this was more than a day after launch, so the satellite may have maneuvered a bit by then. It has since then raised its perigee to 5,764 km and reduced inclination to 13.16 deg.
SpaceX has said that SES 10 was injected into an orbit that met agreed parameters. I wonder if this might have been a planned propellant depletion mission. Such missions can have a wider acceptable orbit range than the more typical guidance cutoff missions.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Comga on 04/05/2017 03:44 am
Landing video.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSfJDjMFzwR/
Kind of bouncy on landing. :D
Everyone's a critic....
But thanks for the link.
Post by: king1999 on 04/05/2017 04:32 am
SES 10 was originally tracked in a 247 x 35,673 km x 26.18 deg orbit, but this was more than a day after launch, so the satellite may have maneuvered a bit by then. It has since then raised its perigee to 5,764 km and reduced inclination to 13.16 deg.
That's a strawman argument. There was a tweet about the first burn which was quite a bit later (https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/848659317226078208). I suspect that 247 x 35,673 km x 26.18 deg was the original insertion orbit.
Post by: nicfit on 04/05/2017 07:30 am
SpaceX has said that SES 10 was injected into an orbit that met agreed parameters. I wonder if this might have been a planned propellant depletion mission. Such missions can have a wider acceptable orbit range than the more typical guidance cutoff missions.
- Ed Kyle
Exactly.
There is a minimum guaranteed apogee. F9 delivered much better than this.
Then there is a nominal calculated apogee, with associated tolerances. You always expect (or hope) to get there or above, betting on conservative computation. F9 delivered slightly below nominal but well within tolerances.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 08:15 am
I know SES-10 is the heaviest F9 GTO launch to date with booster recovery, but how does it compare with JCSAT-16? I'm afraid I have no idea in terms of orbital parameters which launch required more dV?
Post by: Oersted on 04/05/2017 08:33 am
Amazing progress we have seen in the last year. Science and engineering rock!
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/05/2017 09:50 am
Landing video.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSfJDjMFzwR/
Kind of bouncy on landing. :D
About 100ms late on MECO-3, IMO. ;)
Post by: sevenperforce on 04/05/2017 01:16 pm
Some clear shots of flames around the legs after touchdown in the landing video.JCSAT-16 massed 4.6 tonnes; SECO-2 was at 9,789 m/s at 208 km.
I know SES-10 is the heaviest F9 GTO launch to date with booster recovery, but how does it compare with JCSAT-16? I'm afraid I have no idea in terms of orbital parameters which launch required more dV?
SES-10 massed 5.3 tonnes. Neither the hosted webcast nor the technical webcast showed the S2 velocity at SECO-2 -- perhaps because they knew it was going to fall short? -- but a glance at Heavens Above shows that the post-separation rocket body is currently floating in a 236x33,407 km orbit at an inclination of 26.2°.
If we know roughly the amount of impulse provided by the decoupler then a little bit of math should allow us to calculate the performance difference.
Post by: envy887 on 04/05/2017 01:42 pm
Some clear shots of flames around the legs after touchdown in the landing video.JCSAT-16 massed 4.6 tonnes; SECO-2 was at 9,789 m/s at 208 km.
I know SES-10 is the heaviest F9 GTO launch to date with booster recovery, but how does it compare with JCSAT-16? I'm afraid I have no idea in terms of orbital parameters which launch required more dV?
SES-10 massed 5.3 tonnes. Neither the hosted webcast nor the technical webcast showed the S2 velocity at SECO-2 -- perhaps because they knew it was going to fall short? -- but a glance at Heavens Above shows that the post-separation rocket body is currently floating in a 236x33,407 km orbit at an inclination of 26.2°.
If we know roughly the amount of impulse provided by the decoupler then a little bit of math should allow us to calculate the performance difference.
The sat and stage drift apart fairly slowly in the video after separation, and they mass about equally. So separation can't add more than maybe 5 m/s to the velocity.
However, depressurizing the stage tanks could slow it down slightly after separation. The difference between the stage orbit and the sat orbit when first observed was only ~35 m/s
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/05/2017 03:32 pm
Payload Stage 2 Orbit Payload Orbit Mass Delta-v
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JCSAT 14 181 x 35869 km x 23.7 189 x 35957 km x 23.7 4.7 t 3 m/s
Thaicom 8 384 x 89872 km x 23.7 350 x 90226 km x 21.2 3.03 t 4 m/s
Eutelsat 117WB 402 x 62603 km x 21.2 395 x 62591 km x 24.7 4.15 t 3 m/s
JCSAT 16 74 x 34400 km x 20.9 181 x 35898 km x 20.9 4.6 t 69 m/s
Echosat 23 179 x 35775 km x 22.5 179 x 35903 km x 22.4 5.6 t 2 m/s
SES 10 217 x 33395 km x 26.3 247 x 35673 km x 26.2 5.3 t 39 ms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ed Kyle
Post by: pb2000 on 04/05/2017 04:21 pm
Post by: larmeyers on 04/05/2017 04:22 pm
Post by: Hauerg on 04/05/2017 04:26 pm
Post by: cscott on 04/05/2017 04:40 pm
SES-10 massed 5.3 tonnes. Neither the hosted webcast nor the technical webcast showed the S2 velocity at SECO-2 -- perhaps because they knew it was going to fall short? -- but a glance at Heavens Above shows that the post-separation rocket body is currently floating in a 236x33,407 km orbit at an inclination of 26.2°.
It didn't "fall short." We have direct word on that in L2.
It may be that this was a "burn to depletion" mission, however, and so final SECO velocity was considered sensitive.
Post by: cscott on 04/05/2017 04:49 pm
I've probably just missed this, and please remove if not L2-worthy, but is it known if SES 10 had the same engines that flew with 1021 on her first flight?Yes, same engines. This was in the public presser.
Post by: ugordan on 04/05/2017 05:01 pm
It may be that this was a "burn to depletion" mission, however, and so final SECO velocity was considered sensitive.
The orbital parameters provided by Martin Halliwell prior to the launch seem oddly specific and precise for a minimum-residual-type shutdown profile. 6:15 into this video www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc
It didn't "fall short." We have direct word on that in L2.
From a SpaceX person at that. Maybe it didn't "fall short". Or maybe it did "fall short" of the target orbit stated above, but still ended up within *contractual* requirements. 50 shades of "fall short"?
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 04/05/2017 05:05 pm
https://www.shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile/newsreleases?ID=25F3AD2E-802A-23AD-4960-F512B9E205D2
Thank you for sharing this link. Amazing how wrong Shelby was in his prediction of the future for commercial space. This news release should be read by all his constituents. He was wrong on most every single point. Furthermore, his statement of facts known at the time were twisted and presented in inaccurate context. Hopefully as time unfolds and he continues to be against the right direction, his influence will diminish and perhaps disappear.
I have two observations from this historic moment. 1) Don't underestimate the power of the entrepreneurial spirit. The attributes of this spirit is a drive and persistence to overcome obstacles rather than "cancel the program". Also, there is a laser focus on achieving the results rather than a focus on a specific/unchanging means to try and reach those results (Shelby's blind support for Constellation/SLS). 2) Don't solicit the view of ONLY the old guys is a field that must advance far and fast (Congressional testimony generally has only been solicited from old timers in the space field). I am an old mainframe guy. In a hearing on system modernization I could offer some perspective, but it should be balanced or even heavily weighted toward the younger experts in the field since it is more their future than mine.
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/05/2017 06:03 pm
Landing video.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSfJDjMFzwR/
Kind of bouncy on landing. :D
About 100ms late on MECO-3, IMO. ;)
Looked more like a classic Science Fiction movie landing.
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 04/05/2017 06:03 pm
Here's a list of the six most recent Falcon 9 GTO missions, showing first track for the second stage and payload. I've added my rough, often inaccurate, guesses for delta-v difference. All of these had or attempted first stage landings downrange except for Echostar 23, which was an expendable flight. The JCSAT 16 stage reentered after a month after appearing to have lowered its orbit post-separation on launch day. It weighed 0.7 tonnes less than SES 10.
Payload Stage 2 Orbit Payload Orbit Mass Delta-v
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JCSAT 14 181 x 35869 km x 23.7 189 x 35957 km x 23.7 4.7 t 3 m/s
Thaicom 8 384 x 89872 km x 23.7 350 x 90226 km x 21.2 3.03 t 4 m/s
Eutelsat 117WB 402 x 62603 km x 21.2 395 x 62591 km x 24.7 4.15 t 3 m/s
JCSAT 16 74 x 34400 km x 20.9 181 x 35898 km x 20.9 4.6 t 69 m/s
Echosat 23 179 x 35775 km x 22.5 179 x 35903 km x 22.4 5.6 t 2 m/s
SES 10 217 x 33395 km x 26.3 247 x 35673 km x 26.2 5.3 t 39 ms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ed Kyle
The values you are showing for the SES-10 are after a velocity augmentation maneuver. The apogee height of Elset One was 33,460 km, about 1,200 km lower than what you are showing.
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/05/2017 06:57 pm
The values you are showing for the SES-10 are after a velocity augmentation maneuver. The apogee height of Elset One was 33,460 km, about 1,200 km lower than what you are showing.I'm using the oldest TLE listed at Space-Track, Epoch Fri Mar 31 2017 13:57:30 GMT, 14 or 15 hours after launch so time enough for one complete orbit.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: envy887 on 04/05/2017 07:06 pm
The values you are showing for the SES-10 are after a velocity augmentation maneuver. The apogee height of Elset One was 33,460 km, about 1,200 km lower than what you are showing.I'm using the oldest TLE listed at Space-Track, Epoch Fri Mar 31 2017 13:57:30 GMT, 14 or 15 hours after launch so time enough for one complete orbit.
- Ed Kyle
Isn't it odd that the stage is now at a 240 km perigee, over 20 km higher than the first TLE?
Post by: spacenut on 04/05/2017 07:29 pm
Anyway, is this booster going to be used again? Maybe for a LEO flight to ISS?
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/05/2017 07:58 pm
http://www.wmfe.org/how-a-recycled-rocket-will-take-us-to-mars/71910
Post by: jcm on 04/05/2017 08:01 pm
The values you are showing for the SES-10 are after a velocity augmentation maneuver. The apogee height of Elset One was 33,460 km, about 1,200 km lower than what you are showing.I'm using the oldest TLE listed at Space-Track, Epoch Fri Mar 31 2017 13:57:30 GMT, 14 or 15 hours after launch so time enough for one complete orbit.
- Ed Kyle
Isn't it odd that the stage is now at a 240 km perigee, over 20 km higher than the first TLE?
The Stage 2 has the lower apogee height, but the earliest elset for the payload has the higher one.
Yes, it's possible there was a PVA burn, but much more likely there was a Stage 2 CCAM/depletion burn which lowered its apogee from an initial one that was the same as the payload. Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot.
I'll note that the difference between the first and second elsets for Stage 2 (the 18 km higher perigee
and a 0.13 deg inclination change) could just be a bad fit for the first elset based on limited data, or
else residual venting of some kind.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 08:09 pm
Anyway, is this booster going to be used again? Maybe for a LEO flight to ISS?
No. Elon said in the press conference after the flight that he plans to offer it to the Cape (presumably for display somewhere, like the first landed booster is at SoaceX in Hawthorne).
Post by: mn on 04/05/2017 09:05 pm
...Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot...
Some of us (myself included) are imagining a shortfall based on the announcer's reaction at SC separation, his reaction seemed hesitant as he looked at the screen and finally said the orbit is 'good enough'. (and we all know that 'good enough' is NOT good enough).
Of course that is not evidence, his data might not have been 100% clear and just because he wasn't sure doesn't mean it wasn't as expected.
And finally even after confirming that 'it didn't fall short', doesn't preclude the possibility that they were expecting a bit more.
Anyway just explaining why at least I (and perhaps others) am left wondering.
Edit: removed irrelevant parts of quote.
Post by: meekGee on 04/05/2017 10:06 pm
"good enough" means under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range.
...Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot...
Some of us (myself included) are imagining a shortfall based on the announcer's reaction at SC separation, his reaction seemed hesitant as he looked at the screen and finally said the orbit is 'good enough'. (and we all know that 'good enough' is NOT good enough).
Of course that is not evidence, his data might not have been 100% clear and just because he wasn't sure doesn't mean it wasn't as expected.
And finally even after confirming that 'it didn't fall short', doesn't preclude the possibility that they were expecting a bit more.
Anyway just explaining why at least I (and perhaps others) am left wondering.
Edit: removed irrelevant parts of quote.
If you always exceeded the expected value, then it wouldn't be "expected", it would be "minimal"...
Post by: mn on 04/05/2017 10:28 pm
"good enough" means under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range.
...Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot...
Some of us (myself included) are imagining a shortfall based on the announcer's reaction at SC separation, his reaction seemed hesitant as he looked at the screen and finally said the orbit is 'good enough'. (and we all know that 'good enough' is NOT good enough).
Of course that is not evidence, his data might not have been 100% clear and just because he wasn't sure doesn't mean it wasn't as expected.
And finally even after confirming that 'it didn't fall short', doesn't preclude the possibility that they were expecting a bit more.
Anyway just explaining why at least I (and perhaps others) am left wondering.
Edit: removed irrelevant parts of quote.
If you always exceeded the expected value, then it wouldn't be "expected", it would be "minimal"...
And to my simple mind "under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range" = "undershot" aka "less than expected" aka "something didn't quite work as expected but we still made it". (The range of 'acceptable' values for the launch contract is hopefully wider than the range of 'expected' values).
Post by: meekGee on 04/05/2017 10:34 pm
If you're going to forecast a range, and you say 10 +/- 1, and it comes out as 9.5, did it "underperform"?"good enough" means under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range.
...Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot...
Some of us (myself included) are imagining a shortfall based on the announcer's reaction at SC separation, his reaction seemed hesitant as he looked at the screen and finally said the orbit is 'good enough'. (and we all know that 'good enough' is NOT good enough).
Of course that is not evidence, his data might not have been 100% clear and just because he wasn't sure doesn't mean it wasn't as expected.
And finally even after confirming that 'it didn't fall short', doesn't preclude the possibility that they were expecting a bit more.
Anyway just explaining why at least I (and perhaps others) am left wondering.
Edit: removed irrelevant parts of quote.
If you always exceeded the expected value, then it wouldn't be "expected", it would be "minimal"...
And to my simple mind "under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range" = "undershot" aka "less than expected" aka "something didn't quite work as expected but we still made it". (The range of acceptable values for the launch contract is hopefully wider than the range of 'expected' values).
That's the nature of expected values - you get a cluster around them, not above them.
Post by: mn on 04/05/2017 10:48 pm
If you're going to forecast a range, and you say 10 +/- 1, and it comes out as 9.5, did it "underperform"?"good enough" means under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range.
...Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot...
Some of us (myself included) are imagining a shortfall based on the announcer's reaction at SC separation, his reaction seemed hesitant as he looked at the screen and finally said the orbit is 'good enough'. (and we all know that 'good enough' is NOT good enough).
Of course that is not evidence, his data might not have been 100% clear and just because he wasn't sure doesn't mean it wasn't as expected.
And finally even after confirming that 'it didn't fall short', doesn't preclude the possibility that they were expecting a bit more.
Anyway just explaining why at least I (and perhaps others) am left wondering.
Edit: removed irrelevant parts of quote.
If you always exceeded the expected value, then it wouldn't be "expected", it would be "minimal"...
And to my simple mind "under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range" = "undershot" aka "less than expected" aka "something didn't quite work as expected but we still made it". (The range of acceptable values for the launch contract is hopefully wider than the range of 'expected' values).
That's the nature of expected values - you get a cluster around them, not above them.
No I would not consider that to be an underperform.
BUT if the contractual 'acceptable' range is 100 +-6 and the 'expected/forecasted' range is 100+-2 and the result is 95, I would consider that both 'good enough' and 'underperform'.
What actually happened here I don't know.
It didn't "fall short." We have direct word on that in L2.
Just trying to get clarity on that statement: does it mean the original statement of 'good enough' was incorrect? or was it both 'within the acceptable range' and 'less than expected'? (the point I'm trying to make is that these two statements are NOT mutually exclusive, and therefore the result is still unclear to me.)
Post by: meekGee on 04/05/2017 11:00 pm
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.If you're going to forecast a range, and you say 10 +/- 1, and it comes out as 9.5, did it "underperform"?"good enough" means under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range.
...Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot...
Some of us (myself included) are imagining a shortfall based on the announcer's reaction at SC separation, his reaction seemed hesitant as he looked at the screen and finally said the orbit is 'good enough'. (and we all know that 'good enough' is NOT good enough).
Of course that is not evidence, his data might not have been 100% clear and just because he wasn't sure doesn't mean it wasn't as expected.
And finally even after confirming that 'it didn't fall short', doesn't preclude the possibility that they were expecting a bit more.
Anyway just explaining why at least I (and perhaps others) am left wondering.
Edit: removed irrelevant parts of quote.
If you always exceeded the expected value, then it wouldn't be "expected", it would be "minimal"...
And to my simple mind "under the nominal expected value but within the allowed range" = "undershot" aka "less than expected" aka "something didn't quite work as expected but we still made it". (The range of acceptable values for the launch contract is hopefully wider than the range of 'expected' values).
That's the nature of expected values - you get a cluster around them, not above them.
No I would not consider that to be an underperform.
BUT if the contractual 'acceptable' range is 100 +-6 and the 'expected/forecasted' range is 100+-2 and the result is 95, I would consider that both 'good enough' and 'underperform'.
What actually happened here I don't know.It didn't "fall short." We have direct word on that in L2.
Just trying to get clarity on that statement: does it mean the original statement of 'good enough' was incorrect? or was it both 'within the acceptable range' and 'less than expected'? (the point I'm trying to make is that these two statements are NOT mutually exclusive, and therefore the result is still unclear to me.)
Post by: mn on 04/05/2017 11:16 pm
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
Post by: meekGee on 04/05/2017 11:20 pm
The customer said "I want at least 9”.They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The guidance people said the profile will give 10 (expected value) +/- 0.8 (expected range) and they are 95% confident in that.
SpaceX therefore promised to deliver at least 9. Anything less then that would be unacceptable and trigger a penalty.
For some values of 9, 10, 0.8, and 95, and using metric percents.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 04/05/2017 11:22 pm
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
Frankly, what difference does it make? The customer was satisfied, SpaceX was satisfied and unless you work for either of them or their insurance underwriters, you're not likely to ever have the technical insight into specifics to know one way or the other.
Post by: ChrisC on 04/05/2017 11:30 pm
Here's Jeff Foust's write-up of Gwynne's remarks today:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-savings-from-reused-falcon-9/ (http://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-savings-from-reused-falcon-9/)
Oh my god, this is the best quote ever:
Quote
Shotwell said she believed an industry skeptical of SpaceX’s efforts to reuse Falcon 9 boosters had become convinced it would be useful. She recalled a quote from science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke describing the three stages of reactions to revolutionary ideas. “‘It’s completely impossible.’ We’ve heard that for 15 years. ‘It’s possible, but not worth doing.’ We’re still hearing that a little bit,” she said.”
“But,” she added, “we’re also starting to hear, ‘I said it was a good idea all along.’”
(That's the second quote on this ACC page (https://www.clarkefoundation.org/about-sir-arthur/sir-arthurs-quotations/))
Post by: mn on 04/05/2017 11:36 pm
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
Frankly, what difference does it make? The customer was satisfied, SpaceX was satisfied and unless you work for either of them or their insurance underwriters, you're not likely to ever have the technical insight into specifics to know one way or the other.
Seems to me there's a big difference between the two, but I guess I'm the only one. So forget I asked, let's move on.
Post by: pb2000 on 04/06/2017 12:12 am
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
Frankly, what difference does it make? The customer was satisfied, SpaceX was satisfied and unless you work for either of them or their insurance underwriters, you're not likely to ever have the technical insight into specifics to know one way or the other.
Seems to me there's a big difference between the two, but I guess I'm the only one. So forget I asked, let's move on.
At the rate SpaceX is changing the industry, I wouldn't be surprised if they take a stab at orbital refueling long before SES looks at the gas tanks and wishes it had that extra bit of deltaV on launch.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 04/06/2017 12:28 am
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
Frankly, what difference does it make? The customer was satisfied, SpaceX was satisfied and unless you work for either of them or their insurance underwriters, you're not likely to ever have the technical insight into specifics to know one way or the other.
Seems to me there's a big difference between the two, but I guess I'm the only one. So forget I asked, let's move on.
There is a difference but in the context of discussion here, with this audience and in consideration of the reality that no one here knows the answer, it's "a distinction that makes no difference."
By and large, modern comsats regularly exceed their nominal 15 year orbital lifespans. Provided SpaceX met their contractual requirements for "GTO-xxxxx m/s" (and we don't know that contractual number), ultimately that's all that matters. We space nerds may want to argue about it, and we may over-analyze a very off-the-cuff "Good enough!" remark made in a moment of excitement on a live webcast, but the net result is very much like theologians arguing about the area of the head of a pin divided by the average area of an angel's derriere ...
Post by: Jcc on 04/06/2017 01:01 am
Post by: sewebster on 04/06/2017 03:25 am
(a) contract requirements in terms of acceptable deviation from desired orbit
(b) distribution of deviations from target orbit for nominal flights.
Depending on how similar or not those ranges are could have a bearing on how interesting it would be to hear things like "good enough."
But this sounds very general and therefore if I were going to discuss it further I would start a new thread.
Post by: JamesH65 on 04/06/2017 11:36 am
It seems to me that there is probably enough knowledge on this site and/or ability to do some math, to determine some plausible ranges for both:
(a) contract requirements in terms of acceptable deviation from desired orbit
(b) distribution of deviations from target orbit for nominal flights.
Depending on how similar or not those ranges are could have a bearing on how interesting it would be to hear things like "good enough."
But this sounds very general and therefore if I were going to discuss it further I would start a new thread.
Is it just me, or is this whole argument utterly pointless? The satellite is in an orbit which is correct, and the satellite owners are happy.
What on earth is there to argue about?
Correct means within the range of acceptable orbits. There is no argument - if it is in the range, it is in the correct orbit, because anything in that range is the correct orbit. There is no 'slightly more correct' or 'slightly less correct'.
Post by: Kaputnik on 04/06/2017 12:03 pm
It seems to me that there is probably enough knowledge on this site and/or ability to do some math, to determine some plausible ranges for both:
(a) contract requirements in terms of acceptable deviation from desired orbit
(b) distribution of deviations from target orbit for nominal flights.
Depending on how similar or not those ranges are could have a bearing on how interesting it would be to hear things like "good enough."
But this sounds very general and therefore if I were going to discuss it further I would start a new thread.
Is it just me, or is this whole argument utterly pointless? The satellite is in an orbit which is correct, and the satellite owners are happy.
What on earth is there to argue about?
Correct means within the range of acceptable orbits. There is no argument - if it is in the range, it is in the correct orbit, because anything in that range is the correct orbit. There is no 'slightly more correct' or 'slightly less correct'.
If the payload was delivered to slightly under the exact desired orbit, and if the normal operation of the vehicle would allow a more accurate insertion, then it can be assumed that this was a burn-to-depletion insertion.
And if this was a burn-to-depletion insertion, then it gives a useful insight into the actual real world performance of the F9 system.
So there may be some merit in discussing this.
Post by: Lar on 04/06/2017 12:14 pm
PS I don't think anyone is arguing.... well sort of. :)
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 04/06/2017 12:48 pm
The values you are showing for the SES-10 are after a velocity augmentation maneuver. The apogee height of Elset One was 33,460 km, about 1,200 km lower than what you are showing.I'm using the oldest TLE listed at Space-Track, Epoch Fri Mar 31 2017 13:57:30 GMT, 14 or 15 hours after launch so time enough for one complete orbit.
- Ed Kyle
Isn't it odd that the stage is now at a 240 km perigee, over 20 km higher than the first TLE?
The Stage 2 has the lower apogee height, but the earliest elset for the payload has the higher one.
Yes, it's possible there was a PVA burn, but much more likely there was a Stage 2 CCAM/depletion burn which lowered its apogee from an initial one that was the same as the payload. Unless you have evidence beyond the TLEs, I'd say there's not reason to imagine that the launch undershot.
Both a payload PVA and a second stage CCAM/depletion burn occurred. The apogee height I reported was from 18SPCS Elset One (JSpOC no longer has that responsibility), which was prior to the completion of the first Rev, where the PVA burn occurred.
Post by: saliva_sweet on 04/06/2017 02:51 pm
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/06/2017 03:05 pm
Post by: cscott on 04/06/2017 05:01 pm
Also, SpaceX told us directly on L2 there was no anomaly? As we keep repeating?They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Post by: saliva_sweet on 04/06/2017 05:21 pm
Also, SpaceX told us directly on L2 there was no anomaly? As we keep repeating?They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Not quite. They reiterated that the orbit was good, no shortfall, contract fulfilled, mission success. This is known and not debated. But it's perfectly possible to have a serious anomaly (failure almost) and still make "good enough" or even perfect orbit. Some ULA launches have been this way.
Post by: abaddon on 04/06/2017 05:23 pm
Post by: Lar on 04/06/2017 05:42 pm
This is getting ridiculous. Please stop.
Yes. Let's draw a line under this and move on. Don't make me make sure my delete button still works.
Edit: it does... Sigh.
Post by: AncientU on 04/06/2017 09:38 pm
In absolute dollar terms, that's something between $15M and $20M. How does this compare to the absolute cost to refurbish a shuttle? (not the first one, but after they'd done a hundred...)
That's about $1M per week as a thumbrule, assuming manpower costs predominate.
Post by: manoweb on 04/07/2017 06:38 am
SES-10 is now in GEO
Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?
Post by: Jarnis on 04/07/2017 06:40 am
SES-10 is now in GEO
Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?
Yes, for sats that use chemical propulsion.
All-Electric sats take longer.
Post by: watermod on 04/07/2017 12:23 pm
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Now that NROL-76 and the next launch are postponed it gets interesting.
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 04/07/2017 01:32 pm
Post by: chad1011 on 04/07/2017 01:52 pm
Yep, we've been waiting for the new date to become documented and now it is via L2 KSC/Cape scheduling.
NET April 30, same window.
Static Fire on April 26.
No reasons given, so likely the payload (which isn't talkative as we're talking about a NROL bird).
Edit: Add Chris's post
Post by: baldusi on 04/07/2017 01:54 pm
For highly experienced operators with experience on the platform, 10 days is normal. New platform or new operators usually take longer. 60 to 90 days is not unheard of.SES-10 is now in GEO
Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?
Yes, for sats that use chemical propulsion.
All-Electric sats take longer.
Post by: cscott on 04/07/2017 01:56 pm
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/08/2017 09:08 am
It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
Post by: MP99 on 04/08/2017 10:33 am
It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.KSC + CCFAS - that's neat. Good spotting.
It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
Cheers, Martin
Post by: vanoord on 04/08/2017 08:02 pm
There's also potential for one of the Pad 39a F9 cores relaunching from LC40.
Edit: correct speling
Post by: yokem55 on 04/09/2017 02:01 am
The first two pairs of FH side boosters are - apparently - recycled F9 cores, so B1021 won't be alone in launching from both pads.The booster from Iridium flight 1 might top them all - launch from both coasts.
There's also potential for one of the Pad 39a F9?cores relaunching from LC40.
Post by: meekGee on 04/09/2017 03:21 pm
It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.Booster recruitment:
It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
Joins SpaceX, sail the seas, see the world!