SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - SES-8 - DISCUSSION THREAD

[ugordan]

So isn't there any cheaper payload that is ready to be sent and can be sent first?

Cheaper sounds unfair to other customers who don't want their birds lost, either. I'd say less dependant on two burns, instead. There's one of the Orbcomm flights upcoming, might be doable with a single burn.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/35362orbcomm-ready-to-ship-8-satellites-for-fall-launch-on-upgraded-falcon

"Eisenberg said that the eight Orbcomm satellites are ready to be shipped and are waiting only on a firm SpaceX launch date."

In fact, if SES-8 is willing to wait a little longer, flying one Orbcomm flight first might not be a bad option at all.

[rds100]

How about a refurbished Dragon then? Not on a mission to the ISS, send it just to make some orbits and demonstrations, and then come back. Imagine what PR stunt it would be if it is successful. They could even fill it with cheese or souvenirs and then sell the stuff when it returns. And then the reused Dragon can then be sent to a museum.
No idea if they have any suitable for reuse though.

[ugordan]

They're not going to waste a vehicle on some PR stunt which doesn't generate any revenue and doesn't chalk off any of the customers off the (already big) to-do list.

IMHO, of course.

[kevin-rf]

They're not going to waste a vehicle on some PR stunt which doesn't generate any revenue and doesn't chalk off any of the customers off the (already big) to-do list.

IMHO, of course.

Cough... Delta III.

It is not a PR stunt if you have to prove the system works before any customers requiring two burns will fly on it. That partially was what Cassiope was about. Prove the v1.1, 1D, fairing, two burns.

The first Delta IV Heavy with a DemoSat provided that assurance for the DOD. SpaceX did it on the fourth Falcon I flight. It is not unreasonable to ask it to fly it with a concrete sat, but if SES is satisfied this will not bite them, then they will fly next.  No need to refurb. a dragon, a nice block of concrete can be quickly found.

[Lar]

this thread will have to be cleaned up again

Agree completely

might be good stuff for a FAQ (no I wasn't volunteering) but ya.

Mods feel free to delete this

[ugordan]

Cough... Delta III.

. . .

The first Delta IV Heavy with a DemoSat provided that assurance for the DOD.

Your examples seem to exactly prove my point that it's "normal" for the next flight to carry a paying customer even if the flight before suffered an outright failure in case of Delta III. It took two failures to step back and put a dummy payload on the next flight.

In case of Delta IV Heavy, again, first flight of a completely new vehicle configuration and it suffered anomalies as well. Didn't prevent DoD from flying a payload on the very next flight after those anomalies were understood/resolved. How is this F9 situation different? Why should F9 require another qualification flight if the anomaly is understood/resolved?

Assuming the Merlin restart issue is not a more general vacuum start issue (i.e. MVac having a chance to fail to light even for the first burn), I don't see why some customer like Orbcomm could not fly on a direct insertion profile. I'm not saying SES-8 should ride the next flight, I'm saying I don't see a reason for *not* flying a customer which has a less demanding flight profile, *if* available. In this case, there appears to be one such customer. However, the fact SES shipped the payload seems to suggest they're eager to launch their bird so all this might be moot.

[Prober]

this thread will have to be cleaned up again

Enlightening paper about the ongoing showdown between SES  and insurers :

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37547ses-approves-satellite-shipment-for-falcon-9-launch-despite-questions

Enlightening is a good word for the article.   
After reading the article; came away with the feeling of slippage ahead.

[Lar]

this thread will have to be cleaned up again

Enlightening paper about the ongoing showdown between SES  and insurers :

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37547ses-approves-satellite-shipment-for-falcon-9-launch-despite-questions

Enlightening is a good word for the article.   
After reading the article; came away with the feeling of slippage ahead.

I on the other hand did not see more slippage than I had already anticipated. Maybe we need a pool for the launch date. I think Nov 15ish

[Robotbeat]

They'll launch before the end of the year. That's my prediction.

[docmordrid]

FWIW, SFN has this on their launch schedule -

Nov. 1    Falcon 9  •  SES 8

Launch window: 2228-2332 GMT (6:28-7:32 p.m. EDT)

[llanitedave]

Does anyone know how The Shutdown^TM will affect launch scheduling?  (Other than MAVEN, of course).

[mlindner]

Does anyone know how The Shutdown^TM will affect launch scheduling?  (Other than MAVEN, of course).

None AFAIK. SpaceX has full access to everything it needs from what we've seen.

[kevin-rf]

My money is it won't impact the schedule:

Hagel: Most Furloughed DoD Civilians Back to Work Next Week

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131005/DEFREG02/310050003/Hagel-Most-Furloughed-DoD-Civilians-Back-Work-Next-Week

[butters]

Enlightening paper about the ongoing showdown between SES  and insurers :
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37547ses-approves-satellite-shipment-for-falcon-9-launch-despite-questions

This is the same reporter who wrote a piece claiming that SES wouldn't ship SES-8 because of the upper stage relight issue. Having been proven wrong, he now writes a piece claiming that SES shouldn't have shipped SES-8 because of the upper stage relight issue. He cites one unnamed insurance official, who might as well be representing a competing firm.

Sounds like a bunch a sour grapes to me.

[Zannanza]

So isn't there any cheaper payload that is ready to be sent and can be sent first?

Cheaper sounds unfair to other customers who don't want their birds lost, either. I'd say less dependant on two burns, instead. There's one of the Orbcomm flights upcoming, might be doable with a single burn.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/35362orbcomm-ready-to-ship-8-satellites-for-fall-launch-on-upgraded-falcon

"Eisenberg said that the eight Orbcomm satellites are ready to be shipped and are waiting only on a firm SpaceX launch date."

In fact, if SES-8 is willing to wait a little longer, flying one Orbcomm flight first might not be a bad option at all.

By using the word "cheaper" I guess what he means is something like a mass simulator, just a lump of aluminium packed with sensors, instead of a com sat from a paying customer.

[Roy_H]

Enlightening paper about the ongoing showdown between SES  and insurers :
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37547ses-approves-satellite-shipment-for-falcon-9-launch-despite-questions

This is the same reporter who wrote a piece claiming that SES wouldn't ship SES-8 because of the upper stage relight issue. Having been proven wrong, he now writes a piece claiming that SES shouldn't have shipped SES-8 because of the upper stage relight issue. He cites one unnamed insurance official, who might as well be representing a competing firm.

Sounds like a bunch a sour grapes to me.

Very good point. From the article:
"An insurance official said that if SES and its underwriters draw different conclusions from the telemetry data they receive from SpaceX, SES could offer sweeteners such as a guarantee of future insurance business, or an offer of a higher premium, or to self-insure part of the launch risk and reduce underwriters’ exposure."

So if there are concerns, then the last statement would seem to me to be the most likely outcome. SES looks willing to assume some risk, and probably SpaceX would be willing to assume some risk. After all, if everything works as Elon says it will, it will cost them nothing.

[Roy_H]

All this talk about shuffling flight order. I thought the order was pretty much cast in stone. Every time there is a slippage in testing or launch, everything after that launch gets set back too. Number of successful flights prior to a given customer's flight must be a high priority in negotiations. I can't see why Orbcomm or NASA would give up their negotiated slot just to satisfy SES.

[MP99]

How about a refurbished Dragon then? Not on a mission to the ISS, send it just to make some orbits and demonstrations, and then come back. Imagine what PR stunt it would be if it is successful. They could even fill it with cheese or souvenirs and then sell the stuff when it returns. And then the reused Dragon can then be sent to a museum.
No idea if they have any suitable for reuse though.

That would have both cost & schedule implications.

If the insurer really baulks, it would probably be cheaper for SpaceX to pay part of that cost to bump up the premium, or cover an excess.

Cheers, Martin

[intrepidpursuit]

We can technically do them without a restart, we can do them as a single burn, but it means the satellite has to do more work to change the plane of its orbit to equatorial. So we can do it either way, but the one which is the minimum work for the satellite does require restart.

According to the above statement by Musk at the Cassiope Presser, the could do the mission without a restart if the satellite has enough spare deltav to do the extra maneuvering. I think if an agreement cannot be reached between spacex, SES and their insurers this would be a viable option. It may lower the lifetime of the satellite, but if it nearly guarantees success then it may be worth it considering the satellites often of some contingency fuel.

EDIT: Quote author fixed. :-)

[QuantumG]

Please don't quote me as saying Elon's words.. just put his name in the author field, like this:

I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact.