Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Iridium NEXT Flight 1 DISCUSSION (Jan. 14 2017)  (Read 345888 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
We'll know better after the Static Fire and the launch attempt per how they will load this F9. One thing we have heard is they have an extra COPV installed now. I did - but it could have been a mistranslation - hear they will only go back to super chilled LOX when they've redesigned the COPVs. But I bet - based on this thread's evaluation of the comments - it's about the HELIUM not the LOX.

Edited that line to avoid confusion.

It's a different issue but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX decides not to use super chilled LOX for commercial crew flights.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2017 05:07 pm by yg1968 »

Offline feynmanrules

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • florida
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 72
Yes but there is also this part:  "as well as returning helium loading operations to a prior flight proven configuration based on operations used in over 700 successful COPV loads."

What does this mean?

believe it's something to effect of "none of our previous He COPVs failed in this exact way using an older procedure, so we're falling back to this procedure".   And 700# is (# of copvs per flight that didn't fail this way * of load/unloads for those flights * # of flights).

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9406
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3236
  • Likes Given: 9133
We'll know better after the Static Fire and the launch attempt per how they will load this F9. One thing we have heard is they have an extra COPV installed now. I did - but it could have been a mistranslation - hear they will only go back to super chilled LOX when they've redesigned the COPVs. But I bet - based on this thread's evaluation of the comments - it's about the HELIUM not the LOX.

Edited that line to avoid confusion.

It's a different issue but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX decides not to use super chilled LOX for commercial crew flights.
Will they then go fully expendable for the first crewed flights?
« Last Edit: 01/02/2017 08:37 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11626
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8711
  • Likes Given: 7336
We'll know better after the Static Fire and the launch attempt per how they will load this F9. One thing we have heard is they have an extra COPV installed now. I did - but it could have been a mistranslation - hear they will only go back to super chilled LOX when they've redesigned the COPVs. But I bet - based on this thread's evaluation of the comments - it's about the HELIUM not the LOX.

Edited that line to avoid confusion.

It's a different issue but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX decides not to use super chilled LOX for commercial crew flights.
Will they then go fully expendable for the first crewed flights?

I think maintaining two processes, even if one of them is the "old" one, is unlikely. It increases failure probabilities. But what tech will be used for commercial crew is offtopic for this thread. Let's wait and see what changes in procedure are visible to us (for this first flight) first, eh?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1243
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 438
Reading various posts, this seems to the result.

The LOV was caused due to the attempt to load more helium than earlier launches with a procedural change to start with cooler helium (denser). The extra COPV will allow for more helium (maybe).

This will not change the LOX loading at all.

Other possible failure modes were uncovered. New designs may allow SX to resume safely the procedure that failed with LOV.

How far off is this recap?

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1447
  • Likes Given: 491
Reading various posts, this seems to the result.

The LOV was caused due to the attempt to load more helium than earlier launches with a procedural change to start with cooler helium (denser). The extra COPV will allow for more helium (maybe).

This will not change the LOX loading at all.

Other possible failure modes were uncovered. New designs may allow SX to resume safely the procedure that failed with LOV.

How far off is this recap?
My understanding of the changes was, that SpaceX tried to optimize the timing of the tanking to increase the launch window, not to squeeze more helium into the bottles.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline wardy89

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • UK
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 75
The way i read the update was that they have changes the COPV configuration to allow for warmer helium to be loaded, and reverting to a older proven helium load operation. I think that if they were dropping densified LOX they would have specifically stated that as it would be a significant change.

But on the off change if they were to switch back to boiling point lox would it require any launch vehicle modifications?

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 127
It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4550
  • US
  • Liked: 4109
  • Likes Given: 2338
It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 127
It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.
Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.



Online Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 129
It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.
Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.

The Iridium and CommeX business models, as far as we have been led to believe, should be different enough that they don't step on each other, in that Iridium does direct to handset satcom, whereas Commex would be IP traffic to fixed stations.

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3149
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1283
Has anyone seen a time for the launch window on Sunday?
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Online Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2279
  • Florida
  • Liked: 541
  • Likes Given: 948
Has anyone seen a time for the launch window on Sunday?

18:28:07 UTC per Iridium CEO.
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, Falcon 9 CRS-9, Falcon 9 JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, Falcon 9 SES-11, Falcon Heavy Demo, Falcon 9 Es'hail-2.

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 127
It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.
Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.

The Iridium and CommeX business models, as far as we have been led to believe, should be different enough that they don't step on each other, in that Iridium does direct to handset satcom, whereas Commex would be IP traffic to fixed stations.

I am holding my breath as to how "fixed" a phased array antenna is in practice.   Say attached to the top of a vehicle and usable after a quick setup when parked to a WiFi wireless device like a cellphone? This would mean no communication while actually mobile but...

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28848
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9022
  • Likes Given: 5792
Very fixed. The antenna has to track things which are constantly moving in the sky. They're used on airplanes to get you satellite internet today.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4550
  • US
  • Liked: 4109
  • Likes Given: 2338
This thread is not for the SpaceX internet constellation.  There are at least two other active threads for that.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28848
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9022
  • Likes Given: 5792
It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.
Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.

The Iridium and CommeX business models, as far as we have been led to believe, should be different enough that they don't step on each other, in that Iridium does direct to handset satcom, whereas Commex would be IP traffic to fixed stations.
Youve convinced me. The CommX requires a pizza box sized antenna. Iridium just something the size of a handset.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline mainmind

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 28
Weather not looking good for the 8th at Vandenberg
https://www.google.com/search?q=vandenberg+afb+weather+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Jan 8 - 50% chance of rain
Jan 9 - 80% chance of rain
Jan 10 - 10% chance of rain

edit: correct spelling of Vandenberg - Thanks, Jim. Percentages were for correct location, though https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/USCA0629:1:US lists percentage for the 8th as 30% instead of 50.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2017 06:45 pm by mainmind »

Offline northenarc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • United States
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 394
 So, any chance the static fire will happen today?

Online cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2952
  • Liked: 2061
  • Likes Given: 666
So, any chance the static fire will happen today?
Apparently the FAA is dragging their feet. That might be the hold up.

Tags: