SpaceX Falcon 9 : Formosat-5 : SLC-4E Vandenberg : Aug 24, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[Lars-J]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

There are some glaring errors in the article and some very apparent biases against SpaceX...

What are the "glaring errors"?  And where is the "apparent biases against SpaceX"?  Please explain.

I read the article.  It's a look at the understood economics of this launch that are nowhere near the economics of other launches.

Let's be careful about accusing other reporters/sites of bias because they do a hard report on the financial loss Formosat-5's launch very much was for SpaceX.

Agreed, it is not a very "biased" article, but it also doesn't really do much to highlight that the other options - A) more delay while waiting for another SSO customer to co-manifest or B) default/break the contract - would likely be even worse for SpaceX, though. Both from a financial and customer service point of view.

[ugordan]

Seemed like the highest duration flight time for a first stage yet. Release high up or with alot of vertical velocity ?

Checking against <video link removed> the entry burn started when the others were landing (It was longer than the longest one from that particular montage) !

Also interesting to note is that this is the first entry burn we've publicly seen where it apparently started well up so there was no immediate shock-induced glow of the exhaust at ignition, it took a while to appear after the booster entered more dense atmosphere. Center engine ignition at T+8:47, 2 others kick in at T+8:51 and the glow starts appearing only around T+8:57

Would have been interesting to see the stage 1 telemetry during that period.

[Callezetter]

yep

Elon Musk‏Verified account @elonmusk  29m29 minutes ago

Max velocity: Mach 6.9
Max altitude: 247 km
Highest so far, but velocity matters much more

[Lars-J]

Seemed like the highest duration flight time for a first stage yet. Release high up or with alot of vertical velocity ?

Checking against <video link removed> the entry burn started when the others were landing (It was longer than the longest one from that particular montage) !

Also interesting to note is that this is the first entry burn we've publicly seen where it apparently started well up so there was no immediate shock-induced glow of the exhaust at ignition, it took a while to appear after the booster entered more dense atmosphere. Center engine ignition at T+8:47, 2 others kick in at T+8:51 and the glow starts appearing only around T+8:57

Would have been interesting to see the stage 1 telemetry during that period.

It looks like the with the lofted trajectory and it was likely coming in very fast, so it needed to start the braking burn much sooner. And this was a much longer entry burn than the last RTLS flight, for comparison. (~30 sec vs ~10 sec) The apogee of this stage could have reached over 300 km, whereas RTLS trajectories for ISS LEO missions only reach ~160 km, if I recall right.

EDIT: Elon just posted on twitter that this stage reached 247 km, so not quite 300 km. But it was an altitude record for the first stage: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/900958153533042689

[su27k]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

There are some glaring errors in the article and some very apparent biases against SpaceX...

What are the "glaring errors"?

Here's some errors:

1. "The overkill is thanks to a years-long delay": It's due to the cancellation of F1e, it has nothing to do with delays.

2. "So how did Taiwan hitch a discounted ride on a Falcon 9? Delay after delay.": If you read the first few pages of this thread, it's clear the satellite isn't even ready until early 2016, so there's only one delay caused by Amos-6.

[titusou]

NSPO told me clearly that Formosat-5 doesn't boost itself into op orbit, it's been put into op orbit by Falcon9 stage2.

Which means Formosat-5 was sep into 720km circular orbit with single stage2 burn...


I know CRS was using single stage2 burn into parking orbit, but that's to ISS, not LEO sat mission

Jason3: stage2 2nd burn ~20secs
Irdium-1: stage2 2nd burn ~2secs
Irdium-2: stage2 2nd burn ~2secs

OG2 (2,000kg payload) is the only LEO sat mission which I can find which doesn't have stage2 burn

I know it's do-able (tried in KSP  ), but how usual/unusual it's to have single stage2 burn into circular orbit. Doesn't seem usual to me. 


Titus

[Jarnis]

NSPO told me clearly that Formosat-5 doesn't boost itself into op orbit, it's been put into op orbit by Falcon9 stage2.

Which means Formosat-5 was sep into 720km circular orbit with single stage2 burn...


I know CRS was using single stage2 burn into parking orbit, but that's to ISS, not LEO sat mission

Jason3: stage2 2nd burn ~20secs
Irdium-1: stage2 2nd burn ~2secs
Irdium-2: stage2 2nd burn ~2secs

OG2 (2,000kg payload) is the only LEO sat mission which I can find which doesn't have stage2 burn

I know it's do-able (tried in KSP  ), but how usual/unusual it's to have single stage2 burn into circular orbit. Doesn't seem usual to me. 


Titus

It generally works only if there is ton of excess margin, or the orbit is very low. In this case, there was a ton of excess margin and this way you could avoid a second stage restart which is always a (minor) risk.

[Ben the Space Brit]

There were rumours that SpaceX were going to be doing some stage 2 recovery tests in this mission. Has that turned out to be just speculation?

[LouScheffer]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

There are some glaring errors in the article and some very apparent biases against SpaceX...

I actually thought it was very positive for the space industry.  In any normal capitalist market, companies bid what they think it will cost, plus some profit.   Sometimes they are wrong and lose money on a particular contract.  If they do it too often, they go out of business.

So this to me indicates the launch market is becoming more commercial, and imposing financial discipline.   In the long run that's a good thing, as both customers and vendors try to optimize value for every dollar they spend.

[smoliarm]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

There are some glaring errors in the article and some very apparent biases against SpaceX...

What are the "glaring errors"?

Here's some errors:

1. "The overkill is thanks to a years-long delay": It's due to the cancellation of F1e, it has nothing to do with delays.

2. "So how did Taiwan hitch a discounted ride on a Falcon 9? Delay after delay.": If you read the first few pages of this thread, it's clear the satellite isn't even ready until early 2016, so there's only one delay caused by Amos-6.

I did not check the archives, just by what I remember about this story:

#1 - I do not agree. Here is my recollection: as of beginning of 2016, this flight was planned as Formosat-5 WITH co-passenger, Sherpa (with about 80 nano-satellites). Later in the year, Sherpa withdraw from this flight BECAUSE of delays, they had a number of customers who could not wait. IIRC(*), this happened before the AMOS-6 explosion. But even if it happened after - it has nothing to do with F1e cancellation, all this happened in 2016, and F1e was canceled (shelved) in 2009 (again - IIRC).
Bottom-line for your #1 - this *overkill* (the payload being 5-7 times lighter then actual F9FT performance for this type of orbit) was caused by a canceled RIDESHARE (not by old story with F1e), it happened sometime last year, and this ride-share cancellation was indeed caused by launch delays.
* - The best way to check the facts here is to look through last year press-releases by Spaceflight Industries.

#2 - " the satellite isn't even ready until early 2016"
- correct.
However, the *satellite was ready early 2016* and *satellite was launched in Aug 2017* - these two statements are perfectly consistent with "thanks to a years-long delay" from the article.

Another way to reconstruct this story with Sherpa rescheduling is to look through "US launch schedule" thread.

edit: corrected typos.

[kdhilliard]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

The article says the "payload fairing ... is worth around $6 million".

Is that a figure we've heard before?  I know Mr. Musk has described it as a pallet of cash, but I though that he was talking about the $1-2 million range.

~Kirk

[smoliarm]

SpaceX Will Lose Millions on Its Taiwanese Satellite Launch

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-lose-millions-taiwanese-satellite-140000663.html

The article says the "payload fairing ... is worth around $6 million".

Is that a figure we've heard before?  I know Mr. Musk has described it as a pallet of cash, but I though that he was talking about the $1-2 million range.

~Kirk

Yes, here -
http://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-savings-from-reused-falcon-9/
("SpaceX gaining substantial cost savings from reused Falcon 9"
by Jeff Foust — April 5, 2017)

Musk said at last week’s briefing that each payload fairing costs about $6 million. “At one point we were debating if we should try to recover it or not,” he said. “Imagine if you had $6 million in cash in a pallet flying through the air, and it was going to smash into the ocean. Would you try to recover that? Yes, yes you would.”

[old_sellsword]

There were rumours that SpaceX were going to be doing some stage 2 recovery tests in this mission. Has that turned out to be just speculation?

Just speculation, and it was only based on payload mass and orbit, so not even speculation based on evidence.

[drnscr]

1.  Mr Gebhardt second paragraph, third sentence. 

2.  The entire eighth paragraph makes what I believe to be assumptions unfavorable to SpaceX

3.  What does the picture of Amos6 explosion have to do with Formosasat?

4.  The entire next to last paragraph

[gospacex]

Is the reason that TV coverage always seems to flake out on the barge upon stage approach, the same reason that the Saturn V 1st/2nd stages always lost data and relied on tape recorders during staging?  Due to flame effect and signal degradation?

Vibration knocks the sat uplink out of alignment causing the feed interrupt.

Also, Bezos engineers do not really need to get a free engineering data on how exactly their competitor nails the landing.

That's supposed to be a joke, right?

No, it is not. I do think that if SpaceX would fix their barge video downlink and make it always show every landing moment in crisp details, all this effort would be helping their _competition_. Even if Bezos now has a few videos, having more of them would be even better for him.

If I would be SpaceX, I would not be improving that downlink.

[Herb Schaltegger]

A
No, it is not. I do think that if SpaceX would fix their barge video downlink and make it always show every landing moment in crisp details, all this effort would be helping their _competition_. Even if Bezos now has a few videos, having more of them would be even better for him.

If I would be SpaceX, I would not be improving that downlink.

Not improving the downlink is about money and payoff, nothing else. No real aerospace engineer is going to learn anything from a landing video at this point that don't already know. Seriously, there has already been coverage of previous launches from ignition through stage return, both tracking cameras from KSC and on-board video through touchdown.

There's nothing to hide in the methodology at this point - it's all engineering, and pictures don't change that.

[Lar]

Seemed like the highest duration flight time for a first stage yet. Release high up or with alot of vertical velocity ?

Checking against <video link removed> the entry burn started when the others were landing (It was longer than the longest one from that particular montage) !

Also interesting to note is that this is the first entry burn we've publicly seen where it apparently started well up so there was no immediate shock-induced glow of the exhaust at ignition, it took a while to appear after the booster entered more dense atmosphere. Center engine ignition at T+8:47, 2 others kick in at T+8:51 and the glow starts appearing only around T+8:57

Would have been interesting to see the stage 1 telemetry during that period.

It looks like the with the lofted trajectory and it was likely coming in very fast, so it needed to start the braking burn much sooner. And this was a much longer entry burn than the last RTLS flight, for comparison. (~30 sec vs ~10 sec) The apogee of this stage could have reached over 300 km, whereas RTLS trajectories for ISS LEO missions only reach ~160 km, if I recall right.

EDIT: Elon just posted on twitter that this stage reached 247 km, so not quite 300 km. But it was an altitude record for the first stage: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/900958153533042689

IIRC, the commentator said it the entry burn was 37 seconds, but I might have misheard or misremembered.

[abaddon]

With regards to the long braking burn, another factor to consider is that the 1st stage had a lot of margin here.  Why not do a nice long gentle re-entry if you have the fuel to spare?

[rpapo]

With regards to the long braking burn, another factor to consider is that the 1st stage had a lot of margin here.  Why not do a nice long gentle re-entry if you have the fuel to spare?

Yes, but coming down from more than twice the usual altitude, the stage should be going roughly 1.5-2 times faster than usual at the point when it started hitting the atmosphere.  And it was coming almost straight down, since it was so much more lofted than usual, so the transition in air density would be that much more abrupt.

According to some rough calculations, if the rocket peaked at about 250 kilometers altitude, and free-fell for 200km (assuming thicker air at about 50km), at the end of that fall it would be going approximately 2000 m/s, or 4500 mph. 

By the same calculation, falling from 120 km (IIRC), the speed upon hitting the thicker air would be around 1170 m/s, or 2600 mph.

Bottom line: a much longer reentry burn is required.  Somebody else could produce more accurate numbers than mine.  A higher value for where the air gets thicker would result in lower entry speeds, of course.

[ZachS09]

IIRC, the commentator said it the entry burn was 37 seconds, but I might have misheard or misremembered.

The entry burn lasted 39 seconds, Lar.