Quote from: butters on 10/05/2013 11:46 pmQuote from: laika_fr on 10/05/2013 08:48 amEnlightening 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-questionsSounds 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.
Quote from: laika_fr on 10/05/2013 08:48 amEnlightening 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-questionsSounds like a bunch a sour grapes to me.
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
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/04/2013 02:03 amWe 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.
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.
Quote from: rds100 on 10/05/2013 02:09 pmHow 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.
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.
Quote from: Antares on 10/04/2013 08:22 pmI spoke too generically. I wouldn't use them in a rocket turbopump application and certain other rotating machinery, where axial shifts and some radial modes of the shaft could affect the precision of the measurement.I'm not sure how axial shift could cause measurement precision issues here unless we're talking about _a_lot_ of shift, enough to get out of range.
I spoke too generically. I wouldn't use them in a rocket turbopump application and certain other rotating machinery, where axial shifts and some radial modes of the shaft could affect the precision of the measurement.
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.
Orbital and SpaceX teaming up what could be better? A Combined Orbital/SpaceX launch party? Sounds good to me. Like the picture!
SES seems to have arrived at the launch site! Check out @LH2Padrat's Tweet: https://twitter.com/LH2Padrat/status/387703887257669633
Quote from: mr. mark on 10/08/2013 11:03 pmOrbital and SpaceX teaming up what could be better? A Combined Orbital/SpaceX launch party? Sounds good to me. Like the picture!Going to love the fairing decals!
Quote from: mlindner on 10/04/2013 08:28 pmQuote from: Antares on 10/04/2013 08:22 pmI spoke too generically. I wouldn't use them in a rocket turbopump application and certain other rotating machinery, where axial shifts and some radial modes of the shaft could affect the precision of the measurement.I'm not sure how axial shift could cause measurement precision issues here unless we're talking about _a_lot_ of shift, enough to get out of range.Pickups break or become misaligned.
padrat's going to be even more confused if they launch a satellite built by Boeing or LM
Quote from: Antares on 10/07/2013 05:14 pmQuote from: mlindner on 10/04/2013 08:28 pmQuote from: Antares on 10/04/2013 08:22 pmI spoke too generically. I wouldn't use them in a rocket turbopump application and certain other rotating machinery, where axial shifts and some radial modes of the shaft could affect the precision of the measurement.I'm not sure how axial shift could cause measurement precision issues here unless we're talking about _a_lot_ of shift, enough to get out of range.Pickups break or become misaligned.A broken pickup wouldn't affect the precision. It would make the data point read nothing. Very obvious in the data and obviously ignorable by any decent algorithm. Misalignment wouldn't affect frequency unless its on the edge of barely reading and getting intermittent signals. Can you just admit already that you're trying to make a ridiculous argument just for the sake of being confrontational?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 10/08/2013 11:55 pmpadrat's going to be even more confused if they launch a satellite built by Boeing or LMWouldn't that be some irony. Although something about a snowball's chance in a very warm place comes to mind.
Quote from: padrat on 10/09/2013 02:50 amQuote from: Lurker Steve on 10/08/2013 11:55 pmpadrat's going to be even more confused if they launch a satellite built by Boeing or LMWouldn't that be some irony. Although something about a snowball's chance in a very warm place comes to mind.This is not at all that unlikely. While there are commercial contracts require the satellite manufacturer to provide a turnkey solution (i.e. deliver the satellite on-orbit and the satellite owner doesn't care how it gets there), more often than not these days, the satellite operator specifies to the manufacturer which launcher to use. This latter situation was the case in both the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 programs.
