LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch IV - NET Sept 28, 08

[siatwork]

Is Spacex launching a real satellite or a 420Kg chunk of concrete?  Just what is a "Mass Simulator Payload"? 

Don't know about SpaceX's specifics, but kind of.  A lead brick will do*  Some instrumentation to track its fate.   The orbit will decay soon (if it's LEO orbited) and the thing will burn up, so not much debris concerns.   Real payloads are normally more expensive than the rockets that launch them, so this is prudent.

*actually, 'dummies' can be much more complex, but as a first approximation

[Antares]

Are they really cheaper? It's a larger, older aircraft. It definitely burns more fuel and I'd always assumed they were much more maintenance intensive. There must be a hefty premium for Air Force flights...

And even if the C-17's are more expensive nominally, there is the aforementioned high demand on An-124's, possibility of piggybacking with a flight already going to Kwajalein, and perhaps runway length or weight limitations at Kwajalein.

I'm 99.5% sure they're cheaper since they're used instead of C-17 to fly Atlas/Centaurs to their launch sites.  Someone with a better memory than me can say which Atlas IIIs (V's?) were flown by C-17s.  An An-124 is staged at IAH (Houston) when it's not in use.

[Patchouli]

Are they really cheaper? It's a larger, older aircraft. It definitely burns more fuel and I'd always assumed they were much more maintenance intensive. There must be a hefty premium for Air Force flights...

And even if the C-17's are more expensive nominally, there is the aforementioned high demand on An-124's, possibility of piggybacking with a flight already going to Kwajalein, and perhaps runway length or weight limitations at Kwajalein.

I'm 99.5% sure they're cheaper since they're used instead of C-17 to fly Atlas/Centaurs to their launch sites.  Someone with a better memory than me can say which Atlas IIIs (V's?) were flown by C-17s.  An An-124 is staged at IAH (Houston) when it's not in use.

Total price likely also depends on distance the C-17 might be cheaper to fly that far out since the fuel costs are likely lower since it's a newer plane with newer more fuel efficient engines.

The F117-PW100s on the C-17 have a much longer maintenance interval then the Lotarev D-18Ts on the AN-124.

So there is likely a point where the C-17 becomes cheaper even though on average the AN-124 is cheaper.

[ChefPat]

Is Spacex launching a real satellite or a 420Kg chunk of concrete?  Just what is a "Mass Simulator Payload"? 

 I wonder what it would take to put a big bag of water into LEO? What exactly would it do once it was up there? Could it cause damage to anything else in LEO?
 What would it look like? Would it spread out enough to see? If so, from that launch latitude, where could you see it from?

[SteveOliver]

Is Spacex launching a real satellite or a 420Kg chunk of concrete?  Just what is a "Mass Simulator Payload"? 

 I wonder what it would take to put a big bag of water into LEO? What exactly would it do once it was up there? Could it cause damage to anything else in LEO?
 What would it look like? Would it spread out enough to see? If so, from that launch latitude, where could you see it from?

On a Falcon 1 that would be a pretty small big bag of water. It would have to be contained or it would boil off right away. Not much of a show either way, I shouldn't think.

[Jim]

  What is wrong with instead of a boiler plate, launch a  bundle of Falcon 9 test hardware. I am sure that the there has to be in house designed components that could use test run in space.

cost and negative work.  And for what reasons?  What would be there to accomplish?    "bundling" together components is just as hard as do the work for the real thing.  Once on orbit the bundled components would need to be supported by a spacecraft bus (the Falcon 9 second stage isn't a solutions since it has a short life span).  Does Spacex just have these laying around?

[Jim]

Is Spacex launching a real satellite or a 420Kg chunk of concrete?  Just what is a "Mass Simulator Payload"? 

 I wonder what it would take to put a big bag of water into LEO? What exactly would it do once it was up there? Could it cause damage to anything else in LEO?
 What would it look like? Would it spread out enough to see? If so, from that launch latitude, where could you see it from?

Not viable.  You would be introducing more slosh into the system.

The water would vaporize

[ChefPat]

Is Spacex launching a real satellite or a 420Kg chunk of concrete?  Just what is a "Mass Simulator Payload"? 

 I wonder what it would take to put a big bag of water into LEO? What exactly would it do once it was up there? Could it cause damage to anything else in LEO?
 What would it look like? Would it spread out enough to see? If so, from that launch latitude, where could you see it from?

On a Falcon 1 that would be a pretty small big bag of water. It would have to be contained or it would boil off right away. Not much of a show either way, I shouldn't think.

Certainly it would have to be contained, but the whole idea is in the end to release it.
I would think the vessel to get it to orbit would be relatively simple to construct, & the method of releasing it shouldn't be too difficult to fabricate either.
I suppose the real question I was asking was whether it would damage anything else & how much it would take to see it from Earth?

[WHAP]

Are they really cheaper? It's a larger, older aircraft. It definitely burns more fuel and I'd always assumed they were much more maintenance intensive. There must be a hefty premium for Air Force flights...

And even if the C-17's are more expensive nominally, there is the aforementioned high demand on An-124's, possibility of piggybacking with a flight already going to Kwajalein, and perhaps runway length or weight limitations at Kwajalein.

I'm 99.5% sure they're cheaper since they're used instead of C-17 to fly Atlas/Centaurs to their launch sites.  Someone with a better memory than me can say which Atlas IIIs (V's?) were flown by C-17s.  An An-124 is staged at IAH (Houston) when it's not in use.

Not sure if the 124 is cheaper than the C-17 (if one were available) but they used to fly Atlas on C-5's, and the 124 is definitely cheaper.  I don't think the Atlas booster ever fit on a C-17 (even the Atlas II).

[antonioe]

We use the An-124 service to carry our spacecraft to Kourou, Baikonur, etc. (we own a specially-shaped satellite container for the An-124).  We even sent two at a time (Intelsat 11 and Optus D-2 were launched on the SAME Ariane V launch on October 5, 2007!)

I believe that the USAF has a (weekly?) regular C-17 flight to Kwaj.  They may have taken advantage of one of the regular flights.

[Comga]

Back to our main story.....

http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=1028739981

... A static flight was conducted today, Saturday, of the Falcon 1 Flight 4, and launch is planned for sometime between Tuesday and Thursday (California time). ...

Is this real new or are they misinterpreting Elon's Friday post?

[Avron]

  What is wrong with instead of a boiler plate, launch a  bundle of Falcon 9 test hardware. I am sure that the there has to be in house designed components that could use test run in space.

cost and negative work.  And for what reasons?  What would be there to accomplish?    "bundling" together components is just as hard as do the work for the real thing.  Once on orbit the bundled components would need to be supported by a spacecraft bus (the Falcon 9 second stage isn't a solutions since it has a short life span).  Does Spacex just have these laying around?

Jim, a record long post.. does this mean that you are moving more or your support to Spacex.. ?.. Just wonder what you think in terms of what these dudes are doing.. against the odds.

[Jim]

  What is wrong with instead of a boiler plate, launch a  bundle of Falcon 9 test hardware. I am sure that the there has to be in house designed components that could use test run in space.

cost and negative work.  And for what reasons?  What would be there to accomplish?    "bundling" together components is just as hard as do the work for the real thing.  Once on orbit the bundled components would need to be supported by a spacecraft bus (the Falcon 9 second stage isn't a solutions since it has a short life span).  Does Spacex just have these laying around?

Jim, a record long post.. does this mean that you are moving more or your support to Spacex.. ?.. Just wonder what you think in terms of what these dudes are doing.. against the odds.

Just stating that that kludging something together is not better than a dummy payload

As for long posts

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg19975#msg19975

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg20180#msg20180

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg20464#msg20464

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg31528#msg31528

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg73603#msg73603

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg73625#msg73625

[toddbronco2]

Back to our main story.....

http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=1028739981

... A static flight was conducted today, Saturday, of the Falcon 1 Flight 4, and launch is planned for sometime between Tuesday and Thursday (California time). ...

Is this real new or are they misinterpreting Elon's Friday post?

Yeah, that looks very much like they just changed a few words in Elon's update.  I'm feeling doubtful that they have information that we don't.  Let's hope more news comes soon.

[Avron]

  What is wrong with instead of a boiler plate, launch a  bundle of Falcon 9 test hardware. I am sure that the there has to be in house designed components that could use test run in space.

cost and negative work.  And for what reasons?  What would be there to accomplish?    "bundling" together components is just as hard as do the work for the real thing.  Once on orbit the bundled components would need to be supported by a spacecraft bus (the Falcon 9 second stage isn't a solutions since it has a short life span).  Does Spacex just have these laying around?

Jim, a record long post.. does this mean that you are moving more or your support to Spacex.. ?.. Just wonder what you think in terms of what these dudes are doing.. against the odds.

Just stating that that kludging something together is not better than a dummy payload

As for long posts

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg19975#msg19975

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg20180#msg20180

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg20464#msg20464

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg31528#msg31528

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg73603#msg73603

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=928.msg73625#msg73625

Lol.. man you know I am pulling your chain..

in terms of chain what do you think of the markets and the "f" team taken themselves out.. and its impact on spaceflight in general.. opps.. on spacex?

[Jim]

I am clueless wrt economics

[ChefPat]

I'm stunned!!! Earlier today I sent an e-mail to Diane Murphy at SpaceX asking if the static fire took place & if it was successful. And she replied!!!

Here is the the exchange;

Yes it was. Launch is still being planned for end of next week.
Diane Murphy
VP Marketing and Communications
SPACEX
Tel 310.363.6714
M: 424.236.0884

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Landers <[email protected]>
To: Diane Murphy
Sent: Sun Sep 21 10:54:58 2008
Subject: Update

Has the static fire test been done? Was it successful?

[Avron]

I'm stunned!!! Earlier today I sent an e-mail to Diane Murphy at SpaceX asking if the static fire took place & if it was successful. And she replied!!!

Here is the the exchange;

Yes it was. Launch is still being planned for end of next week.
Diane Murphy
VP Marketing and Communications
SPACEX
Tel 310.363.6714
M: 424.236.0884

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Landers <[email protected]>
To: Diane Murphy
Sent: Sun Sep 21 10:54:58 2008
Subject: Update

Has the static fire test been done? Was it successful?

Patrick .. awesome news..   

EH please edit out your email address .. in the original post ...

[toddbronco2]

I'm stunned!!! Earlier today I sent an e-mail to Diane Murphy at SpaceX asking if the static fire took place & if it was successful. And she replied!!!

Here is the the exchange;

Yes it was. Launch is still being planned for end of next week.
Diane Murphy
VP Marketing and Communications
SPACEX
Tel 310.363.6714
M: 424.236.0884

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Landers <[email protected]>
To: Diane Murphy
Sent: Sun Sep 21 10:54:58 2008
Subject: Update

Has the static fire test been done? Was it successful?

That's nice that she takes the time to respond!  Thanks for enquiring for all of our benefit!

[antonioe]

what do you think of the markets and the "f" team taken themselves out.. and its impact on spaceflight in general.. opps.. on spacex?

Who took themselves out?